
CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom - _Codemonkeyism
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-broadcom-apple-verdict/caltech-wins-1-1-billion-jury-verdict-in-patent-case-against-apple-broadcom-idUSKBN1ZS399
======
btilly
This decision saddens me.

I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the
collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation
(ie patents), but slows actual innovation.

Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent
angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-(

(In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reason. For example go out
and implement a wavelet compression algorithm for images without violating any
patents. Are you sure you didn't violate patents? Really sure? Exactly!)

~~~
bsinger98
I completely disagree. If I invent a new technology I should have the right to
sell it. It is not fair for the inventor to create a novel technology only to
have a huge corporation steal your idea. It is similar to China stealing US
IP, it ruins the incentive to actually invent new ideas. If I create something
novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established
corporations.

For example, look at the Wright Brothers. They invented the airplane and
didn't make any money. They spent their entire life suing people for stealing
their idea. The system should encourage and incentivize creating ground
breaking inventions.

~~~
rudedogg
> If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can
> compete against established corporations.

I agree, but I don't think the current patent system does this. I think the
length of patents should be reduced dramatically, 5 years sounds reasonable.

It's crazy when you think about how patents last for 20 years, which doesn't
really work with the current pace of technology IMO (as an example, the iPhone
wasn't released until 2007). So you can't use anything Apple patented to make
the ORIGINAL iPhone work until... 2027? That doesn't seem good for humanity to
me.

If the lengths were reduced, and the requirements much more strict, I think
the world would be a better place.

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent)

~~~
PunchTornado
Not gonna work. getting a new patent in genetic sequencing takes 10 years of
research. then in 5 years you sell only a couple of products, especially if
you're not the market leader. Then your competitor can use your idea while you
invested billions in it.

Think about oxford nanopore and illumina for example. if illumina could just
use their patents after 5 years and given that they already have 90% market
share, they would be dead.

~~~
ddxxdd
Solution: allow a company or individual keep a patent up until (total assets -
total liabilities) / (research costs) is greater than 15.

------
bmdavi3
If it were any other company I'd get depressed and say it's another victim of
the tragedy of software patents. But Apple deserves every post-Creative Labs
patent victory ruled against them.

For anyone that doesn't know, in 2006 Apple was caught off guard and sued by
Creative Labs over the iPod, resulting in a $100 million settlement. It was
total nonsense and Jobs was right to be pissed, but what does he do? Does he
get fired up to bring about patent reform? No! He doubles down on software
patents himself and goes on to sue Samsung in the same shitty way in 2011.

I mean, it's too late now to turn the ship around on software patents. It's
never going to change. But 2006 - 2011 were prime growth years for Apple,
where they could have made a great case to the public for how software patents
were bad and used in a totally bogus way against a well liked American
company.

And if he didn't want to do that, he could have built up a library of patents
to squirrel away for defensive purposes on a rainy day.

But no. He got burned by Creative Labs, hated the experience, and turned
around and did the same exact thing to a totally unrelated company.

When it comes to software patents, fuck Steve Jobs and Apple.

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/creative-pushed-
stev...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/creative-pushed-steve-jobs-
to-armor-up-for-the-smartphone-patent-war/)

~~~
lilyball
I think you're confusing software patents and design patents, because the
latter is what Apple famously used against Samsung.

~~~
bmdavi3
Thank you. You're correct, I've wondered why this isn't mentioned more often,
and maybe that's why.

However even after realizing that, I personally still consider a design patent
about rounded corners to be on the same level of B.S. as a software patent,
and still stand by my conclusions. But I'd be interested to know why I
shouldn't do that, and if you have more information I'm honestly all ears

~~~
nodamage
You make it sound like Samsung was quietly doing their own thing and then were
blindsided by a lawsuit from Apple. But actually after the iPhone was released
Samsung deliberately went through it screen by screen and produced a 132-page
report on what features and interface elements they should steal from the
iPhone.

[https://archive.org/details/436142-samsung-relative-
evaluati...](https://archive.org/details/436142-samsung-relative-evaluation-
report-on-s1-iphone/mode/2up)

I don't have a great opinion of the patent industry in general but in this
situation Samsung's behavior was pretty blatant and unethical (IMO), and went
well beyond "rounded corners".

~~~
sangnoir
> But actually after the iPhone was released Samsung deliberately went through
> it screen by screen and produced a 132-page report on what features and
> interface elements they should steal from the iPhone.

Did you know competitive analysis is something that is frequently done across
many industries? GM/Mercedes/Toyota are among the first customers to buy[1]
their competitors latest models and they disassemble them to the last bolt to
figure out/estimate materials, methods and costs per component, sub-assembly
and unit level. I see nothing unethical or nefarious about that.

1\. Often they pay companies like Munro & Associates
([https://leandesign.com/](https://leandesign.com/)) do the analysis on their
behalf

~~~
lilyball
Competitive analysis is different than cloning the look & feel of something.
"They have a unified design style with very nice rounded corners throughout
the OS, we should have our own unified design style with our own nice touches"
is not the same thing as "we should copy their style wholesale". GM isn't
making cars that look like Toyota's.

------
WalterBright
Live by the sword, die by the sword. I wonder when Apple, Broadcom, etc., will
have enough of these pyrrhic patent lawsuit victories and start lobbying for
an end, or at least a major curtailment, of the patent system.

~~~
btilly
According to economic theory, the ability of a company to sustain profits in
the long term is based on having barriers to entry to their market. This kind
of patent threat is a barrier to entry, and suffering on the losing end of
them is rent on the profit margin that they have been able to sustain.

Therefore, even with these losses, the patent system is worthwhile for them.

~~~
mirimir
True. But barriers to market entry is also a prong for establishing monopoly
power. So it cuts both ways.

------
artemisyna
Cause someone will make this comment eventually: "Caltech" not "CalTech". :)

~~~
WalterBright
You beat me to it!

~~~
BalinKing
It’s honestly really sad that even _professional_ journalists don’t know how
to spell it correctly :-(

~~~
WalterBright
[https://www.caltech.edu/](https://www.caltech.edu/) tells the tale.

I've never seen it spelled CalTech in anything from the university nor from
any techer.

~~~
brokensegue
"CalTech" used to be correct

~~~
HHest
Reference?

~~~
brokensegue
there are signs around campus that still use the old spelling.

~~~
selimthegrim
The one on the exit ramp from the 210 doesn’t count

------
pasttense01
The issues here are simply too complicated for juries to decide--particularly
the amounts of money.

If Apple was simply using devices it purchased from Broadcom, Broadcom should
be responsible for all the damages.

~~~
stefan_
There are tons of ways to avoid a jury panel. You find any sort of prior art
and patents, along with any suits, simply vanish; you file a challenge with
the patent office for reexamination, an expert there decides it's invalid, the
case disappears.

~~~
colejohnson66
You make it sound easy, but the patent office is severely overworked. Also,
does the case just “go away?” Or do you have to file a motion to dismiss on
the grounds that the patent is invalid?

------
randyrand
If the patents were owned by a single individual instead of caltech, would the
verdict be as large? They’d instantly be in the top 3000 richest people in the
world.

~~~
hcknwscommenter
Possibly. However, very few "single individual[s]" would have the resources to
fund such inventions AND the associated patent procurement AND fund such a
litigation. Moreover, this will be appealed and the final outcome could take a
decade.

~~~
davnicwil
Your last point has me thinking - hypothetically if an individual were in this
situation, could they sell 'equity' in the eventual settlement in order to
take money off the table now, rather than go bankrupt from legal expenses etc
and get nothing?

E.g. Sell 50% of the initially ruled $1.1B settlement for, say, $100MM.

Anything like this ever happened?

~~~
dlgeek
Yes. The term you want to search for is litigation finance.

------
oh_sigh
Does anyone have information about what the patent is for? Google search shows
500 general news articles with no specific information about the lawsuit.

~~~
egdod
Here’s a blurb with the patent numbers.
[https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/01/billion-verdict-
caltech...](https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/01/billion-verdict-caltech.html)

~~~
_rpd
"Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like
codes"

~~~
loeg
Forward error correction is a patent minefield, so instead everyone just uses
Reed-fucking-Solomon.

------
sitkack
That could fund a couple of sweet astrophysics experiments.

~~~
selimthegrim
Or free tuition for undergrads

~~~
BalinKing
The popular observation (truthful joke?) on campus is that they could give a
full ride to 15 consecutive classes of undergrads with all that money...

~~~
BalinKing
With that said, though, Caltech does provide significant need-based financial
aid (gotta give credit where credit’s due, after all).

~~~
bhl
I remember this from a previous conversation on (what I think was) NYU medical
school being tuition free for an incoming class, and that drove the admission
rate way down because with no tuition, it got super competitive. I wonder if
there’s a good trade off between competition and the amount of needs based
tuition.

------
JoeAltmaier
I.e. Broadcom stole Caltech patents and didn't pay royalties. Apple uses
Broadcom chips (like many others). So they'll pay too.

~~~
daddypro
Shouldn't Broadcom be solely responsible for this? If apple buys a product,
why would apple be responsible for details that went into the hardware on BC's
end? Not trying to troll - but genuinely trying to understand the logic/law
here.

~~~
hnburnsy
Yup, I think is is called patent infringement indemnification, but I'm
guessing lawyers always sue everyone with deep pockets no matter what.

~~~
ChuckMcM
There is also the idea of patent exhaustion, which is that you get your
royalties when the thing is implemented (ie the chip) and you don't get any
more when that chip is re-sold. Of course Broadcom has some really wild patent
"license" deals where they make you license the patent _and_ buy the chips
(that is also the subject of a court case)

------
mathattack
Will either company stop recruiting at CalTech as a result? Probably still
worth it for CalTech, but very few schools are willing to take on Big Tech.
Would Stanford ever do this?

------
easytiger
is there an article on the details?

------
Trias11
"... As a non-profit institution... "

Sounds legit.

~~~
OrgNet
they're probably going to have to pay their employees a bonus?

