[daddypro]

Shouldn't Broadcom be solely responsible for this? If apple buys a product, why would apple be responsible for details that went into the hardware on BC's end? Not trying to troll - but genuinely trying to understand the logic/law here.

[hnburnsy]

Yup, I think is is called patent infringement indemnification, but I'm guessing lawyers always sue everyone with deep pockets no matter what.

[ChuckMcM]

There is also the idea of patent exhaustion, which is that you get your royalties when the thing is implemented (ie the chip) and you don't get any more when that chip is re-sold. Of course Broadcom has some really wild patent "license" deals where they make you license the patent and buy the chips (that is also the subject of a court case)

[sjg007]

Are they custom chips Broadcom developed for Apple?

[chrischen]

Then there would be a loophole where you make an independent entity that “makes” something that shields infinite liability. It makes sense to go after all beneficiary owners and parties.

[stubish]

I see. So I guess, assuming appeals don't overturn the decision, then Apple needs to sue Broadcom for damages? I don't see Apple left holding the bag in this. Unless they would rather use it as a stick when negotiating future deals with Broadcom.

[stefan_]

You mean like they make shell companies for patents so any adverse judgements don't sink the whole boat? Hell yeah, lets have it then.