The patent covers a method for cutting a link between two interconnected circuits. The patent was issued in 2000 to an engineering professor in Israel named Joseph Bernstein, and his fellow inventor Zhihui Duan. The pair filed the patent in 1997. But MIT says that it has the rights to the patent and is due damages and royalties on all Apple products containing chips that were produced using the patented technology.
In a similar situation, back in 2013 Boston University sued Apple claiming that the tech titan infringed on a patent from 1997 that covered a small electronic component. Boston University used a law firm in Texas that gets paid on a contingency basis to sue Apple and other tech firms. The company sought a ban of the Apple iPhone 5 and one tech analyst predicted that the suit could be settled for as much as $75 million just to stop it from being a nuisance to Apple.
source: Scribd via GigaOm
Posts: 3165; Member since: Jun 19, 2010
Correct me if I'm wrong, but why should Apple have to pay MIT? The chip manufacturer was Micron, they're the ones that infringed on the patents, and thus the party that should be sued. For being a fancy school of science and technology, someone apparently forgot logical deduction.
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 7:09 PM 2
Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010
Tell that to MS lawyers and their lawsuits on Android OEMs... I agree, and I also feel Google should be the target of the MS lawsuits.
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 7:49 PM 3
Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013
Yes but you forget, Android is not ready to go out the box. If that was the case, everyone could run base base ASOP, which wouldnt be much fun. No file manager (that uses patents from MS) and various other things. As a result, when you start putting things in place, that deviates from what Google is truly offering for free. That's where you get into trouble.
posted on Feb 14, 2015, 9:05 AM 1
Posts: 3991; Member since: Jan 04, 2012
Micron may be the manufacturer, but they use apple's parameters, and if apple requests Micron make chips in a method contained within the patent without permission and /or royalties, then apple is also guilty. It's like when a hit man is hired to kill someone. The hit man is guilty of first-degree murder and related crimes, but the hirer of the hit man is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree murder by association, and other crimes.
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 10:46 PM 3
Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014
Because Apple is struggling financially in 1997, we choose to wait until Apple reach its peak, then we sue even it's 15years later
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 8:33 PM 2
Posts: 21778; Member since: May 28, 2014
Apple is getting a taste of its own medicine.
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 9:32 PM 8
Posts: 81; Member since: Dec 21, 2013
well they've apparently been in it a while..."An Apple A Day keeps The Doctor Away"...apparently they're also aliens bent on destroying/taking over the earth since they want to keep The Doctor away...
posted on Feb 14, 2015, 11:02 AM 0
Posts: 6032; Member since: Aug 06, 2013
Well, the article did not state that the patent was infringed upon back in 1997, but that's when the patent was issued.... I don't really care about these patent legal issues. They annoy me and hinder technological progress.
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 10:57 PM 0
What a coincidence that the patent expires in 2 years.
posted on Feb 13, 2015, 11:04 PM 0
Posts: 17311; Member since: Jun 17, 2009
What a coincidence that that patent is still valid. Doesn't matter when it expires. I know it might confuse Apple diehards because it's a patent on actual tech and not "borrowed" from anyone else, but that's what patents are actually supposed to cover.
posted on Feb 14, 2015, 10:45 AM 1
Posts: 2305; Member since: Sep 11, 2014
Everybody want Apple money....
posted on Feb 14, 2015, 12:23 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):