Apple has behaved disgracefully here. Pay up ya cheapskates!!!
More lies from our resident prevaricator.
Apple has now 37 VALID patents to do the exact same thing as the one patent that WARF claims to own from 1998. Each and every one of Apple's patents refers to the prior art of the WARF patent, along with a couple of hundred OTHER valid patents that do the exact same thing as WARF's patent does that do not infringe on WARF's patent either! They were deemed valid by the same US PATENT and TRADEMARK OFFICE that granted WARF's patent, which was valid for what they patented. . . a specific implementation of an Abstract Idea. . . as are all the hundreds of other valid patents, including Apple's patents in the same area, implementations of the same ABSTRACT IDEA, the forward looking pre-processing of sub-routines in a inter-active predictive environment which constantly updates potential results as the main-program proceeds, discarding unlikely results and retaining likely results and recalculating new results based on progress in the main-program.
At the time of application by WARF for their patent, predictive forward looking parallel processing was a topic discussed in literature offering different means of attacking the problem and WARF's implementation was a compendium of several of those OBVIOUS ideas.
The ABSTRACT IDEA was not and is not patentable. . . but his jury is assuming that WARF got a patent on the ABSTRACT IDEA . . . and apparently is applying that as a test on all specific implementation applications. That is impermissible. . . but the WARF attorneys presented their case that way and the Magistrate Judge permitted it and actually expedited it by deliberately excluding expert testimony about all other patents in the same field for similar approaches that DID NOT INFRINGE WARF's patent. . . including Apple's own patents.