Apple ordered to pay damages in Opti patent case, Apple appeals
By Donald Melanson 
posted December 8th 2009 12:36PM
posted December 8th 2009 12:36PM
Full-time IP licensor Opti sure has been keeping itself busy in the last few years suing the likes of NVIDIA, AMD and Apple, and it looks like its case with the latter may now finally be drawing to a close. After a few years of battling it out in the courts in Texas, the judge in the case has ordered Apple to pay Opti $19 million for three instances of patent infringement, as well as $2.7 million in pre-judgment interest. The judge didn't find that Apple willfully violated the patents in question, however, which concern a memory access technology known as predictive snooping (hence the relatively small damages). Apple apparently isn't quite ready to call it a day just yet though, and has reportedly already filed a formal appeal to have the case overturned.
Would be nice to know the 3 patents that were violated.
@(Unverified) A vague patent on "processing information" no doubt.
@(Unverified) : Only 1 patent. There were three different places that the patent was supposedly violated. I don't know which specific claims that were in question.
"Predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses", United States Patent 5710906
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5710906.html
So now that Apple lost a patent lawsuit, are we supposed hate the winner in this case or do we sneer at Apple like we did Paystar?
@LAY
LOL So True.
As much as I don't vibe with Apple, I don't think it was deliberate or malicious violation, as was the case with Psystar. Psystar knew what was coming, and screwed with Apple anyways.
Most of the outcry that we heard was found Apple fanatics anyways. You never heard the outcry from them when they blatantly stole the iPhone name from Cisco, did ya?
@(Unverified)
Oh, I recall them saying at the time that Apple was entitled to the use of the name because their device was soooo much cooler.
@(Unverified)
You say it probably wasn't a deliberate violation, Apple says it didn't violate anything, therefore the appeal. This is why Apple (along with all large corporations) are evil. It doesn't matter whether they are guilty or not, they will tie everything up in the courts for years hoping the smaller guy will run out of money and go out of business or in the end just buy them. See Atari and Bushnell for reference.
@sweet greggo Or Microsoft and the naming of Internet Explorer for that matter. That is exactly what they did. Heck, my friend got sued by Intel because her GREETING CARD company used the word "Inside"!
re the iPhone name
At the time (thru late 2006 until it's intro in Jan '07), Apple didn't even acknowledge it had a phone in the works. It was all speculation and rumour from tech and blogger sites.
It was on the Internet (not Apple) that the "iPhone" name came about and Apple just adopted it as a natural (with all the other "i" items in it's inventory).
Cisco was already using the name and the 2 companies came to an understanding re it's use.
@LAY
If you can prove that Psystar was doing everything they did "accidentally" (i.e. the court said Apple did not intentionally infringe on this patent), then you might have a point. But since it's you, that subtlety is probably entirely lost on you.
I dunno, why don't you throw it out there? Did Psystar accidentally steal the OSX86 project's work? Did they accidentally make copies of OS X and include them on their hardware? No please, entertain us all with an explanation of how those two situations are comparable.
@Jack
They both got taken to court
They both lost.
But I'm sure the subtlety is probably entirely lost on you.
@LAY
You're bad at reading, aren't you? I said prove how the situations are the same. Psystar was stealing from other companies, Apple wasn't. Is that concept just too hard for you to understand or something?
I like how you say Apple got taken to court and lost. They actually won a $2.4 million judgement against Psystar. You have an interesting interpretation of the word "lost". Do you need a dictionary or something?
It's so thoughtful of Texas to build a city just for patent trolls.
@mullingitover
You apply for a patent, and it gets awarded to you, then there is no "trolling" involved.
You can easily say Apple's patents for "obvious" stuff, just to ward off competitors, is trolling too.
@LAY
Try Googling "patent troll" so at least you know what you're talking about.
@LAY I don't know if these patents were worthy of approval or not, but in general, just because the a patent is approved doesn't mean we should let companies off the hook for abusing the patent system and suing other companies over patents they should never have been awarded in the first place. The patent system is in desperate need of reform. The least people can do is shame the companies that abuse its flaws.
@mullingitover
Texas must have an inordinate amount of wealthy judges (nudge nudge, wink, wink) given the numerous and easy way suits are settled for the plaintiffs (and the reason so many law suits are issued there).
@Zweben Yeah, right, when Apple loses, the patent system needs a reform. When Apple pursues a patent infringement and wins, they were right all along and the other guys should burn in hell for infringing the sacred Jobs patents. Get a grip.
can't wait for nokia to take down apple thieves
@katatonic
Agreed.
Pay Nokia their licensing fees you hypocritical shits.
Apple deserved it. They steal lot of patents from different companies without paying them and act like they are the one who invented it. Well done judge!
No. Your just a fanboy. MIcrosoft sure made invented them Multitouch pinch gestures, right?
@LiveDigital Im sorry. But I must comment again. You bloody Idiot.
@LiveDigital Go troll somewhere else
@LiveDigital Give me 3 f***ing good examples
@LiveDigital
LOL wow, you sure got Pat's panties in a bunch :).
"Patent Trolling" is the best 2 words a fanboy could ever put together.
While companies forcing others to pay for infringement is a bitch, it's called business. If I create something and patent it, even if it's a stupid piece of technology at the time or it may seem minuscule at the time, I have a right to protect that minuscule patent. EVERY company does this, even Apple. Go ahead and try to claim iPod as your own, you'll be in a world of hurt.
Furthermore, I don't really feel the need to pass judgement on either company here. As far as I can tell, X infringed on Y. There's no need to go "Yay Apple deserved this" or "boo, patent troller *nerd rage*". That's ridiculous. Like I said, it's business, and business happened.
@N900 You are a blatant patent fanboy :D
@Oli D duly noted, lol.
@N900 You're right that companies have a right to protect their patents, even stupid ones that they shouldn't have been awarded. Just because it's legal to take advantage of a broken system to make money at the expense of innovation, though, doesn't mean people should be okay with it. Patent trolling discourages innovation. People should be fighting to get the system reformed and shaming the companies that abuse patents.
@N900
Patent trolling is very appropriate given that Opti stopped actually being creative and producing anything of substance to just go after patents.
@N900 But at the same time, shouldn't you be working to do something with that patent, rather than just sitting on your ass and suing anybody who tries to come up with a similar solution to the problem they're facing?
This is an IP licensing firm. They don't invent anything, they don't produce anything. They just buy up patents and try to sue anyone who looks like they're doing anything that looks remotely like something they bought. They are discouraging innovation, which is exactly opposite what the patent system was created to do.
@N900
What if I filed a patent for iPod many years before it was even thought up? What if I waited 15 years after the iPod launched before trying to capitalize on it, ensuring it was a raging success and I could get billions in damages? Are you saying that since business is business, it's okay then?
I will be rich in 5 years then :D
I want to patent the action of looking inside a box..
so anyone who unboxes anything has to pay me royaties!
I want $1,000,000 in damages from Engadget and $10,000,000 from youtube for all those videos.
USA needs to fix this crap patent troll fest.
@NAME
maybe you're a geek too much and didn't think of this earlier:
you should rather patent the action of putting something into a hole. so that anyone who puts something into a hole (...) has to pay you royalties.
It's like a doublewin.. because i noticed you want to be hip and earn moneys with the "web 2.0"... let me tell you, you'll also get the money from the interwebz..
@brown like dookie
You're right, Apple really should not protect its trademarks. Seriously, are you new to how copyright law works in the US? You HAVE to protect your trademarks or you can LOSE THEM. Every company does this. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Some of them go overboard like Monster, but people complain less about that than they do about Apple for some reason.
The problem with bringing a lawsuit against apple is they have a very deep pockets. If they can spend less money in court than they're being sued for, they will outspend you in legal fees until you can no longer continue the case. Pretty sleazy.
@jakeZ
The court determined that Apple did not intentionally infringe on this patent. Why wouldn't they appeal?