http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/ Engadget Comments for Apple ordered to pay damages in Opti patent case, Apple appeals http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 12:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
"Predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses", United States Patent 5710906
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5710906.html]]>Dec 8th 2009 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/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?]]>Dec 8th 2009 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 1:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 1:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 2:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
They both got taken to court

They both lost.

But I'm sure the subtlety is probably entirely lost on you.]]>Dec 8th 2009 3:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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?]]>Dec 9th 2009 3:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 12:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 12:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Try Googling "patent troll" so at least you know what you're talking about.]]>Dec 8th 2009 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 2:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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). ]]>Dec 8th 2009 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 4:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 12:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Agreed.

Pay Nokia their licensing fees you hypocritical shits.]]>Dec 8th 2009 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
LOL wow, you sure got Pat's panties in a bunch :).]]>Dec 8th 2009 1:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 1:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
Patent trolling is very appropriate given that Opti stopped actually being creative and producing anything of substance to just go after patents.

]]>Dec 8th 2009 2:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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. ]]>Dec 8th 2009 4:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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 ]]>Dec 8th 2009 9:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/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.
]]>Dec 8th 2009 1:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/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..
]]>Dec 8th 2009 6:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
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.]]>Dec 8th 2009 2:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/Dec 8th 2009 2:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/08/apple-ordered-to-pay-damages-in-opti-patent-case-apple-appeals/
The court determined that Apple did not intentionally infringe on this patent. Why wouldn't they appeal?]]>Dec 8th 2009 2:36PM