What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
242 Comments
- Asianwaste, on 04/26/2009, -6/+194In before MS/Apple/Linux fanboy flame war. Not that it matters. Someone else will claim this thread and I'll have to later sue that user, then someone will sue me for infringing on the idea of the "In before..." meme. It'll get all complex and heated and people will quote wikipedia many many times.
- kreatre2007, on 04/26/2009, -28/+157This is stupid. The company that sued Apple doesn't even produce anything. They just sue other companies to make a profit. That's the kind of thing that should be illegal.
- inactive, on 04/26/2009, -16/+138It's about time they started getting called out on this. Corporations like Apple and Microsoft abuse the patent system regularly for their own benefit, time for some karmic retribution. How many of their patents are as (or more) obvious than this one?
- Shazbuckle, on 04/26/2009, -16/+65Fanboy blogger
He seems pissed :D - Anand999, on 04/26/2009, -1/+41EDIT: Nevermind. I see Opti Inc. used to be real company with real products but now is just patent holding company.
- centerblack, on 04/26/2009, -1/+38Meh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPTi_Inc.
One Man Patent Troll.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT ...
73. A method for transferring a plurality of data units to a bus master from a respective plurality of memory locations at sequential memory location addresses in an address space of a secondary memory, for use with a host processing unit and a cache memory which caches memory locations of said secondary memory for said host processing unit, said cache memory having a line size of l bytes, and each data unit having a size equal to the largest size that can be transferred to said bus master in parallel, comprising the steps of:
sequentially transferring data units to said bus master from said secondary memory according to a PCI-bus burst transaction, beginning at a starting memory location address in said secondary memory address space and continuing beyond at least first and second l-byte boundaries of said secondary memory address space, each l-byte line of said transaction requiring at least 8 data unit transfers to said bus master; and
during the transfer of the data units for each entire N'th l-byte line in said step of transferring, initiating one and only one snoop access of said cache memory, said snoop accesses each specifying the respective N+1'th l-byte line and being initiated early enough such that they can be sampled by said host processing unit prior to completion of the transfer to said bus master of the last data unit in the respective N'th l-byte line,
wherein said step of transferring comprises the step of transferring to said bus master three sequential data units including the last data unit before said first l-byte boundary and the first data unit beyond said first l-byte line, all at a constant rate,
and wherein said step of transferring further comprises the step of transferring to said bus master three sequential data units including the last data unit before said second l-byte boundary and the first data unit beyond said second l-byte line, all at a constant rate.
74. A method according to claim 73, wherein said step of sequentially transferring data units continues further beyond a third l-byte boundary of said secondary memory,
and wherein said step of transferring further comprises the step of transferring three sequential data units including the last data unit before said third l-byte boundary and the first data unit beyond said third l-byte line, all at a constant rate.
88. Controller apparatus for a computer system which includes a secondary memory having an address space, a bus master, a host processing unit and a cache memory which caches memory locations of said secondary memory for said host processing unit, said cache memory having a line size of l bytes, and each data unit having a size equal to the largest size that can be transferred to said bus master in parallel, said controller apparatus comprising circuitry which in a mode of operation, in response to a PCI-bus burst read transaction initiated by said bus master,
sequentially transfers data units to said bus master from said secondary memory according to said PCI-bus burst transaction, beginning at a starting memory location address in said secondary memory address space and continuing beyond at least first, second and third l-byte boundaries of said secondary memory address space, each full l-byte line of said transaction requiring at least 8 data unit transfers to said bus master, a plurality of sequential data units bracketing at least said first, second and third l-byte boundaries being transferred to said bus master at a constant rate, said constant rate being dependent upon the frequency of a PCI-bus clock provided to said bus master; and
during the transfer of the data units for each entire N'th l-byte line according to said transaction, initiates one and only one snoop access of said cache memory, said snoop access specifying the respective N+1'th l-byte line and being initiated early enough such that it can be sampled by said host processing unit prior to completion of the transfer to said bus master of the last data unit in the respective N'th l-byte line, said snoop accesses being sampled by said host processing unit in accordance with a host clock signal having a frequency that is at least twice said PCI-bus clock frequency. - norsurfit, on 04/26/2009, -1/+36Technically a company can't be "guilty" in a patent infringement case, because it's a civil case. One can only be "guilty" in a criminal case.
The correct terminology is that Apple is found "liable" for willful infringement. - lololol1, on 04/26/2009, -4/+36right clicking?
- Asianwaste, on 04/26/2009, -2/+28Really? I don't see no wikipedia link saying that he did!!!! Your truth and logic does not stand a chance against my rabid fanboy enthusiasm.
- Bloodsweattears, on 04/26/2009, -1/+26All software patents should be declared invalid on their face. Code should be protected by copyright. The stuff they are allowing to be patented is INSANE and simply hampering development in North America, while countries that do not honor patents for software and coding are beginning to outpace us.
- centerblack, on 04/26/2009, -1/+25It would appear that someone who didn't speak english but wanted their patent to sound horribly complex wrote all of that up.
I wonder how they select a jury for these kinds of lawsuits. Are the jurors all qualified to make a decision? - Impact009, on 04/26/2009, -5/+27It's time to summon juries that have knowledge about the subject matter of the case. I don't see a way for the average person to fully grasp something like this, no matter how each side presents their case.
By the way, I'm not an Apple fan, so I'm not defending or supporting either side. I would hate having my verdict being decided by a group of ignorant people relative the subject matter. Sure, we can say that each side has to prove their case, but can't we also agree that the more educated somebody is, the better the decision he or she can make? - Nightlurker, on 04/26/2009, -3/+24Or maybe this should make Apple think twice about silly patents as Multi Touch on the Iphone/Ipod. But probably not.
- GraphiteCube, on 04/26/2009, -12/+32Whoa, Apple has started its iPhotocopier!
: D - MonsterRayn, on 04/26/2009, -6/+26Allow me to present the obvious question:
Opti-who? - tnoy, on 04/26/2009, -4/+24You must be a blast to have around at parties.
- Shazbuckle, on 04/26/2009, -0/+19cerejota already started it above you :(
- SirDomino, on 04/26/2009, -4/+23What a surprise, a no name company that patents a broad "technology" sues a larger company for actually successfully implementing a feature that they supposedly own?
It is amazing how you can patent something ridiculous and then wait around for some other company to implement it and then sue them. There are entire businesses built on that very premise. The most ruthless being Acacia Research.
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/ - Shazbuckle, on 04/26/2009, -2/+19I think it's pathetic to say it's pathetic to get buried.
And anyway I don't see anyone really bashing apple above me, most are just trolls trying to get this very reaction from you.
haha D: - MacParrot, on 04/26/2009, -1/+16Did you read the article? This is a story about a company (look up what they make. It couldn't be any more generic) that seems to be little more than a patent troll who sued Apple for some process that apparently is common. I read the original patent and honestly understood little of it.
If they had sued in California or New York I might have had more sympathy for OPTi, but the fact they went to Marshall, Texas (a well known place for lodging lawsuits for juries with sympathetic awards against large companies) speaks volumes.
I don't know if Apple actually infringed on this patent, or if the patent is valid, but going to east Texas for a lawsuit? You just lost most of your credibility right there. - milkmage, on 04/26/2009, -1/+16OH, you mean because this lawsuit has nothing to do with the phone or apps?
- r3zonance, on 04/26/2009, -2/+17I know, it sounds pretty much like "effectively" like the way branch-prediction logic works in CPUs, and this as a concept was invented in the 1960/70s (before the CPU was born) by Chuck Peddle.
- cstaylor89, on 04/26/2009, -1/+14Concept-based patents are ridiculous. It doesn't make sense how you can patent "an idea" without having to know in even the slightest way how it should work. Being able to patent a specific process is necessary, and definitely fair in the way that companies should have the exclusive rights to their own research. But basically I could patent, say, a sweetass atomic death ray that harnesses the power of the earth's rotation to blow planets up. Then some company puts millions or billions of dollars into researching and successfully creating this death ray, and I sue THEIR asses for "taking my idea."
- KibibyteBrain, on 04/26/2009, -0/+12@r3zonance Yes, but "Combination Patents" are not only legal, but the most popular kind, unfortunately. As long as your mixup is deemed "novel", its patentable. If you look, the patent in question even cites two patents that are remarkably similar.
- Landragoran, on 04/26/2009, -0/+12this sort of thing isn't uncommon - just look at SCO.
- jazzbeaux, on 04/26/2009, -9/+20Apple invented the concept of charging overinflated prices for stuff other people actually worked hard to create.
- KevinRosa, on 04/26/2009, -2/+13iLaugh
- Yazilliclick, on 04/26/2009, -0/+10The juries and judges on the cases aren't so much the problem, it's the patent system which supports ***** unsupported patents so certain people and companies basically make their living by making ***** up and then sueing whenever somebody later comes along and really does invent something similar.
- phill, on 04/26/2009, -0/+10We as a human race will never see advancement and innovation like the past 100 years as long as people keep suing each other instead of working together to really propel us to the next level.
- doctordbx, on 04/26/2009, -8/+18Such as....?
GUI? No.
Mouse? No.
Firewire? No.
Removing the Floppy drive? No.
Um... actually... what did Apple invent? - MacParrot, on 04/26/2009, -2/+12Did you read the article or did you just find this (yet another for you) appropriate place for an anti-Apple rant? EVERY company that competes with products similar to Apple's is going after them. That's how competition works.
And does anyone have a link to how much Apple spends on legal as compared to R/D? - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -12/+21What hasn't apple copied?
- NinjaGod, on 04/26/2009, -0/+919 million dollars is like 19 million dollars to me.
- c0baltfish, on 04/26/2009, -0/+9Grammar God, and he looks down on you for not putting question marks at the end of your questions.
- beand1p, on 04/26/2009, -0/+8I found his comment enlightening...
- TVarmy, on 04/26/2009, -0/+8Do they at least sell/license out their patents? It's fine for a company to be a research company that sells their designs, in my mind, since not every company has the resources for large-scale manufacturing, but just patenting what might later enter the market and then suing rather than selling the rights is just a waste of the public resources at the judicial system and patent office.
- inkswamp, on 04/26/2009, -2/+10Digg has pretty much jumped the shark. Actually not the site per se, but the users. This is a really interesting story. Back in 2006, there would have been a lot of insightful and interesting comments here. Every time something happens regarding tech patents, there *should* be some interesting discussion about it, but nowadays you can't come to a Digg discussion without half the people here expressing some kind of childish gloating because it's company A or B whom they hate. And the other half are going off on some pseudo-libertarian ***** expressed with all the intellectual aplomb of a drunk fratboy: "Yeah, take that big, dumb corporate America! We (heart) our freedom! WOOHOO! ***** patents!!!"
Seriously, if you're one of those people or someone who's moderating that crap up, have the decency to be embarrassed for your dumb ass for helping to ruin what was once a great site. - emotecontrol, on 04/26/2009, -1/+9lol @ "large, well-loved company"
- MacParrot, on 04/26/2009, -3/+11It's great just how you stick to the topic and get right to the heart of the matter. Oh wait...that isn't what you did and you got dugg down.
Stick to the topic
/end rant - cstaylor89, on 04/26/2009, -3/+1119 million dollars is like 19 million dollars to apple.
- spunkmyer, on 04/26/2009, -3/+11Eastern Texas court, oh god!.. nuff said. Patent Troll haven. /sarcasm
Ok real question time. Why cant a defendant have the trial moved to a different court in a different state? - LucasVB, on 04/26/2009, -1/+9iNfringe
- tribowl, on 04/26/2009, -0/+7*Where's
You can't just change a common phrase - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -1/+8When I worked for Adobe, they had a program set up where you'd get a $500 bonus if you submitted an idea for a patent- ANY patent- that actually made it through the application process. (You had to sign all the rights over to Adobe, of course.) And Adobe isn't the only company that does this.
The bottom line is that we live in a society that values greed over all else. Let's say that you came up with a way to paint 3d textures onto Virtual objects using Real World proxies. Guess what: you'd owe Adobe royalties, because even though they haven't actually created a system like that, they DO own the patent on the very idea. - Linkage155, on 04/26/2009, -3/+10@Landragoran Nope, Fail.
- Diggnabbit, on 04/26/2009, -2/+9I'd be surprised if the "willful" part of this judgment holds up on appeal.
"Willful" infringement is based on "whether the infringer acted in disregard of the infringed patent with no reasonable basis to believe it had a right to do the acts in question."
Unless there's more to the story, I don't see anything to support the idea that Apple (1) knew they were infringing AND (2) infringed anyway, AND (3) had no reason to think they weren't. - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -1/+8Just wait till you get us started on Russians. We really hate those bastards.
- knop3se, on 04/26/2009, -7/+14That´s ok. 19 mil for apple is like 15 bucks for me.
- alanocu, on 04/26/2009, -5/+11Do Apple fanboys torrent Mac software, or do they actually emerge from their parent's basement and pay for it at the Apple Palace before stealing the iPhone displays they use for their Halloween costumes?
- alanocu, on 04/26/2009, -6/+12Best comment in this thread.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 244 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is