For several years Apple has been in a patent fight with the University of Wisconsin. But recently the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a bid by the university to reinstate its legal victory over Apple.
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.
John Martellaro and Bryan Chaffin join host Kelly Guimont to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling against Apple and the state of Apple Retail.
Imagine, if you will, a world where businesses could sue you for leaving a negative Yelp review—and that if their lawyers could prove your statement was in some way false and defamatory, could get a court order forcing you and Yelp to remove the review.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) gave privacy a bit of a lifeline on Friday by ruling that a warrant is required to get cell phone tower location data from carriers.
The appeal is on whether or not the case can proceed, and if SCOTUS allows that, it could decide if companies are allowed to maintain walled gardens for app distribution.
A patent battle over flavored water may turn into a win for iPhone and Mac maker Apple, and a big loss for patent trolls. Thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Monday, patent infringement cases must be filed in the jurisdiction where the offending company is incorporated, which will greatly limit the court choices open to patent trolls.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard testimony on from Apple, Samsung, and the Department of Justice on Tuesday on how damages should be calculated in design-related patent infringement cases. The hearing is the latest round in the mobile device patent infringement fight the two companies started in 2011, and underscores how confusing it can be to set damages values.