US Supreme Court Snubs University of Wisconsin Appeal in Patent Fight With Apple

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a bid by the University of Wisconsin's patent licensing arm to reinstate its legal victory against Apple in a fight over computer processor technology that the school claimed the company used without permission in certain iPhones and iPads. From a report: The justices, on the first day of their new term, declined to review a lower court's 2018 decision to throw out the $506 million in damages that Apple was ordered to pay after a jury in 2015 decided the company infringed the university's patent. The licensing body, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), filed suit in 2014, alleging infringement of a 1998 patent on a "predictor circuit" to help speed the way processors carry out computer program instructions. The patent was developed by computer science professor Gurindar Sohi and three of his students at the university, located in Madison, Wisconsin. WARF, which helps patent and commercialize the university's inventions, claimed that Apple incorporated the technology in its A7, A8 and A8X processors, found in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, as well as several versions of the iPad tablet. Apple disputed the claims, saying its processor worked differently based on the specific language spelled out in WARF's patent.

Re:

[cloud.pt]

yeah that is a very adult thing to say

Patents suck

[AmiMoJo]

This is just another example of how patents suck. Often they are easy to work around anyway, but you can still use them as a stick to beat people with. Companies with fewer resources than Apple might have simply caved in and paid up rather than face expensive litigation.

It sucks for the patent holder because if they did genuinely invent something anyone else can probably use it for free anyway and the only enforcement option is expensive and risky litigation, and it sucks for everyone else who might get hit with baseless lawsuits.

Re:

[Anonymous Crowded]

It works both ways though. A small company gets flogged with this and it's a bad judgement, and they're out of business. I don't recall Apple majorly suing anyone but Samsung, who, whether one wants to admit it or not, copied the iPhone. In other news: it's 2019 and people still follow Apple's lead, whether it's a good idea or not . . .

Re:

[dgatwood]

This is just another example of how patents suck. Often they are easy to work around anyway, but you can still use them as a stick to beat people with.

If a patent is even remotely legitimate (i.e. specific enough to grant), it is always easy to work around, because as long as even one of the steps isn't performed, you're not violating the patent. So in practice, reading the patent gets you 95% of the way there, and you just need to spend that extra little bit of effort to find an alternative to one of the

Fund government research!

[bussdriver]

Universities and national labs used to take public funding and give away scientific progress with very little credit as corporations and whole industries were formed from the work. The companies heavily marketed their "innovation" which usually amounts to the packaging and sometimes figuring out mass production is their actual contribution and the public only thinks of the marketing hype unaware just how little the contribution was.

Most of science is dull unprofitable work upon which the glamorous stuff is

SC avoids tech fights

[Gravis Zero]

The US Supreme Court widely avoid getting into battles over technology largely because they have admitted that they don't really understand it and making a decision could be devastating. The basic issue is that should they incorrectly decide an issue, the ramifications are widespread (requiring and additional SC ruling or constitutional amendment to change it) and they have a very finite time.

With an issue that could prove fundamental and is exceptionally technical, they are going to avoid it like the plague.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

When did they say that? My reading of this case is that this is not a question of law that would involve SCOTUS. A jury at the district court found against Apple. An appeals court reversed the decision as a matter of law. And by the way, the job of SCOTUS is never to rule on technology; their job to rule on law.

“Rejects” vs “snubs”

[the_skywise]

So when the SC is doing something slashdot likes it’s “rejects” - but when the SC does something slashdot dislikes it’s “snubs” (like the amazon pay appeal)

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

It depends how strongly you feel injustice about what SCOTUS decides to review I guess

Not too upset

[NaCh0]

Work done at a University should be public domain.

Trying to game the grant system for free money and then lock your research up with patents is scumbag behavior.