Apple Wins Appeal in Wisconsin Patent Lawsuit

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so it’s final and apple wins.

You dig to deep, keep it simple, it's just that I think many "things" shouldn't be patentable, 1+1=2 is not patentable, software shouldn't be patentable, the above shouldn't be patentable, that's all.

Why shouldn’t a specific computer microarchitecture be patentable?
[doublepost=1538248844][/doublepost]

Yep, but Intel was infringing. They funded Prof. Sohi's work and assumed that meant they had a license to use the results of his work. Unfortunately this was not true and they ended up settling with WARF out of court. So they got Intel's money twice :)

We actually don’t know if they were infringing. We only know they settled. Most patent cases settle, whether meritorious or not.

In other words, shouldn't be patentable.

Oh. But the patent doesnt involve claiming an equation, so whats your point?

I don't follow?

In other words, shouldn't be patentable.

1+1=2, nobody can use it without a licence.:rolleyes:

Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “particular,” and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of WARF, we hold that no reasona- ble juror could have found literal infringement in this case. As explained above, each entry in Apple’s LSD prediction table includes, among other things, a load tag and a prediction. Each load tag is generated by hashing information about a load instruction, such as its address, down to a 12-bit load tag. Only 4,096 load tags are possi- ble. And because of the way Apple’s hashing algorithm is designed, multiple load instructions may hash to the same load tag. Each load tag can therefore be associated with a group of load instructions—namely, all of the load instructions that hash to the same load tag. The practical effect of this is that a given load instruction’s history will impact the prediction associated with all load instructions that hash to that same load tag.
[doublepost=1538152186][/doublepost]WARF’s second argument for upholding the jury verdict appears to be that, even if the prediction must be associated with a single load instruction, the products still infringe in at least some circumstances—i.e., those in which aliasing does not occur. Appellee’s Br. 15–18. Certainly, a product that “sometimes, but not always, embodies a claim nonetheless infringes.” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (alteration omitted) (quoting Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). But after reviewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of WARF, we find that there is insufficient evidence to support WARF’s theory that Apple’s load tags are sometimes associated with a single load instruction.