Apple was recently sued by a previously unknown company named BIAX,
alleging patent infringement. In last week's
article, we took a look at the legal framework of the case. This
week, we conclude our two-part series by looking at how, or if, any
Apple products might infringe on these patents.
At issue are two patents filed by the Plaintiff (BIAX): June 6,
1994: "Computer with instructions that use an address field to select
among multiple condition code registers," and June 7, 1995: "Parallel
processor system for processing natural concurrencies and method
therefor." As an opening observation, let me say that as best I can
ascertain from reading these two patents, their primary focus is on the
processor. To date, the only named Defendant in this lawsuit is
Apple Computer, Inc. As many times as I have been to Cupertino, I have
never seen the Apple chip fabrication facility. Where is Steve Jobs
cranking out all those PowerPC G3 and G4 processors? In the basement
somewhere? Initially, at least, it seems this Plaintiff has the wrong
Defendant.
Here is a quote from the original Reuters article reporting the
filing of the lawsuit: "According to Slobodin [the Plaintiff's
attorney], the patents in question improve the efficiency and speed of
parallel processing of a computer's central processing unit (CPU)."
"Parallel processing allows the CPU to perform many simultaneous
tasks," Slobodin said.
This lawsuit alleges that Apple "makes and sells computers that are
covered by the patents." Let's examine the logic of this allegation.
If these patents apply to the PowerPC processors at all, they
probably apply to most RISC-based processors. That being the case,
doesn't Sun also "make and sell computers that are covered by the
patents?" What about IBM and their higher-end servers? Most
Hewlett-Packard laser printers use a RISC processor.
The second patent may apply to most, if not all, multiprocessor
systems. If I go down to the local computer store and buy the right
parts, I can also "make and sell computers that are covered by the
patents." Where does it end?
It is generally the company which manufactures the allegedly
infringing part that must be sued. If it is the CPU which
violates the patent(s), that company is not Apple; it is IBM and
Motorola that make the processors.
Why has Apple been singled out? I can't begin to speculate what may
be going through the minds of those in power at this company (BIAX),
but it certainly looks like some coincidence that this lawsuit was
filed at a time when Apple is perhaps more flush with cash than they
have ever been in their history.
The BIAX attorney has said that they are considering filing similar
lawsuits against "other unnamed computer manufacturers." It will be
very interesting to follow this case and see if any other manufacturers
are named. This may give us insight as to exactly what the alleged
infringements are.
Technical considerations aside, it is entirely possible - even
likely - that there may be no legal infringement upon the patents in
question at all. As I noted last week, one cannot go out and patent an
invention which has already been brought to market if the individual
seeking the patent did not in fact invent the product. The PowerPC
processor predates even the earliest of these patents by over two
years. In fact, Apple's release of its first computer featuring the
PowerPC chip also predates the earliest patent by three months.
Certainly multiprocessor RISC systems from other manufacturers predate
both patents as well. It is important here to clarify that the G3 and
G4 are merely different models of the PowerPC processor, just as the
601, 603ev, 604(e), etc.
It is the existence of this "prior art" which may hold the key to
this lawsuit. Apple, as well as any other companies which may be
subsequently sued, must prove that the "inventions" described in these
patents already existed at the time the patent applications were filed,
and that the party who filed the applications had nothing to do with
their invention. If that can be proved, the USPTO will invalidate the
patents.
Will this happen? This case is in much too early a stage to venture
a prediction with any certainty. It will be analyzed by electrical
engineers who are so intimately familiar with CPUs that they could
build one in their sleep. After a cursory analysis by a layperson, I
would have to say the call is, "Advantage Apple." However, only after
an in-depth analysis by these engineers will we be able to make a real
judgment as to the likely outcome.
We will continue to follow this case and keep our readers informed
as the events unfold. 
Further Reading
