Slashdot Mirror
Five PC Vendors Face Patent Lawsuit
Combuchan writes "This article from internetnews.com caught my attention: While Linux lawsuits gobble up the IT community's mindshare, a lesser-known legal action is being fought seeking billions of dollars from five PC vendors. Patriot Scientific, a small, San Diego-based seller of embedded microprocessors for automotive and scientific applications, is suing Sony, Fujitu, Matsushita, Toshiba, and NEC, alleging infringement of a Patriot patent for what it calls 'fundamental microprocessor technology.'"
I guess suing is one way to make money, but not always the fastest.
Look, who has the clout in congress to get the patent mess cleaned up? Big companies. Thus, the fastest way to clean it up, have big companies get harassed with expensive lawsuits like this. A lot. If Intel, Microsoft, IBM, etc., waste enough money fighting stupid patents (note - I know nothing about the Patriot patents, they may or may not be stupid), then you can bet that things will change.
Just a thought. Of course, laws would probably change in a way that makes it harder for anobody to sue big companies, but leave it just as easy for big companies to patent "one click instead of two to buy an item" type idiocy, but we can hope, can't we?
Had anyone else not heard about this company before today?
these guys are idiots. Here's the patent:
San Diego, CA - August 7, 2003 - - Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC) developer of key microprocessor technologies and scalable Java solutions for mobile products, today announced that it has received an additional patent for fundamental microprocessor technology currently in widespread use. United States Patent #6,598,148 B1 has been granted for PTSC's variable speed clock acceleration technology for RISC and CISC processors. The patented technology not only bolsters PTSC's licensable microprocessor IP portfolio, but further strengthens the company's patent rights.
Future patent grants are expected that will further expand PTSC's rights within these fundamental technologies.
Jim Turley, editor of Silicon-Insider and previous editor of Microprocessor Report and a member of the company's Scientific Advisory Board, said, "After analyzing PTSC's patent, I'm certainly impressed with its range of coverage, basically representing the dominant means of accelerating internal microprocessor clock speeds."
Jeff Wallin, president and CEO of PTSC stated, "This is an important patent grant as it further validates our early innovation of key processing technologies that are ensconced in our IP portfolio. It not only gives our customers an extra measure of certainty in terms of our virginity and the technology but it substantially strengthens the validity and scope of our patent enforcement efforts."
Because of the breadth of the company's patent portfolio coupled with the size of the market benefiting from the company's protected technologies, the company is pursuing an intellectual property compliance program targeted at hundreds of companies using microprocessors with internal capabilities greater than 120 KHz. This is estimated to be in excess of a $200 billion market. Beatie and Osborn LLP, one of America's most prestigious law firms, represents the company's licensing and enforcement objectives.
Does any company actually have a business plan that isn't based around suing people any more?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
It says in the article that Patriot's patent was issued last summer.
Pentium chips have been around since the mid-90's.
Doesn't this make for a ridiculously clear case of prior art?
This could all be solved by a careful and considered destruction of the current US Patent Office, and it's replacement by something that actually works.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Why is it that they're suing Intel customers but not Intel itself... seems like they're afraid to go after somebody who might challenge them rather than settle...
It seems the only people making serious money from high tech are the lawyers.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Here is the official patent from the USPTO. It was originally filed in 1998, but IC's have been around much longer than that, so I'm sure there's some prior art somewhere. This next quote could almost have come from the depths of the SCO complex:
Kinda sounds like Rambus and look where they've gone.
Amigori
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
And, on top of all this, this company has the nerve to go after Intel's CUSTOMERS, instead of the company itself. Personally, I think all of these lawsuits should, by default, be dismissed, since there has been no lawsuit against the "potentially" infringing company to determine the validity of the claim(s).
Although Patriot has plans to move forward with its 32-bit processors and application-specific integrated circuits, Wallin said that product revenues were currently "negligible."
"Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now," he said.
They don't actually make anything. They are a perfect example of why patents should be abolished - consumers and manufacturers all loose because of higher prices that support legalized protection rackets run by these thugs.
Although Patriot has plans to move forward with its 32-bit processors and application-specific integrated circuits, Wallin said that product revenues were currently "negligible."
"Our main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now," he said.
Gee, this really reminds me of someone... can't think of the name...
Intel should outsource their legal team to a foreign country. Just imagine a team of high priced lawyers with heavy accents all using the wookie defense! They'd unstoppable!
From the parent: "we need to have some kind of IP court that determines whether or not a certain idea/algorithm/process deserves a patent to begin with. If not, no patent."
Isn't that precisely what the patent office is supposed to do? The problem is that they are inundated with so many requests that they don't have the resources (or desire for that matter) to adequately analyze and process each application.
I think the IP court you suggest would be subject to exactly the same problem, but with the added detriment of procedure in our never-ending legal process.
Though I haven't read the patent in question, it's possible that Intel's work in the 90s reflects prior art - but the patent office doesn't have time to find out one way or the other.
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
I think what would help more than patent reform though is tort reform. For one, making the losing party pay is a start. Also, finding a way to reduce lawsuits or using arbitration more often will contribute significantly. Reforming the patent system would be nice too though.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Considering that even all the huge companies have business models based around patents. At least, I assume they do, considering that IBM has ~25,000 active patents (Including a record of about 3,400 awarded in 2001), and numbers I've heard for other huge companies are also astronomical.
To these companies, owning lots of patents on lots of sometimes crazy things is a way of protecting their turf and a good way of putting potential competitors out of business. If they try to tighten up U.S. patent law, they'll only be making their job harder. Besides, I imagine that the amount of money they lose off most these lawsuits is chicken-scratch compared to their coffers.
The claims enumerated in patent 6,598,148 describe nothing more than an SMP system where the cache ram takes up at least 51% of the core and where the clock is variable. This is nothing unique and any idiot trained in the arts would have seen it as a trivial invention (SMP, variable clock, and large caches have all existed for quite some time) and therefore not worthy of a patent. Furthermore I don't see where Intel or their clients could be violating it except for the speed throttling overheat protection in the P4 and family processors. I know it's been said many times before but as far as the IT industry is concerned the USPTO needs to be scrapped or seriously funded because the way things work now are NOT acceptable, it's too easy for a bogus, stupid, or overbroad patent to slip through.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Yes, they'll change so only big companies can file stupid patents. :-)
So, instead of having IP patents go through the same office as everything else, why don't we set up some kind of office that only deals with this type of patent? Obviously, it is very different from the types of patents the patent office is accustomed to dealing with. The people who approve or deny these patents really need to be knowledgable in IP rights as pertaining to computers. While there are definitely some patents that have somewhat of a point, some are just completely outrageous, and these should be caught before any patent is issued. Hell, for the cost of patenting something, I feel that there should be some checks put in place to protect others, as well as the potential patent holder.
no patent numbers were given. Here is a list of microprocessor related patents assigned to Patriot Scientific:
6,598,148 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,809,336 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,784,584 High performance microprocessor using instructions that operate within instruction groups
5,659,703 Microprocessor system with hierarchical stack and method of operation
All of these patents appear to be divisional patents of another patent:
5,440,749 High performance, low cost microprocessor architecture
which was filed in August of 1989 (for the most part, this date should be taken to be the effective priority date of all the above applications) and assigned to Nanotronics Corporation.
Please remember that titles, abstracts, and descriptions from the patent mean nothing legally. The only section which has any legal weight is the claims, so please don't start complaining about old microprocessors as "prior art" unless they actually do the same thing as is stated in the claims.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Interesting, all of the manufacturers "happened" to be major Japanese PC vendors, and they are sued by a company called "Patriot Scientific?" Is this some sort of retaliation acts for Pearl Harbor?
Patriot's provocative plan
Actually, no, they don't. That's trademarks and trade secrets. Someone needs to learn a little more about IP law before posting as if they were authoritative.
I think that I have finally realized the missing part of this infamous formula:
1. Do X
2. ????
3. Profit.
The missing variable has been right in front of our eyes all along. It's sue everybody.
NJ Local Music Scene
Does anyone notice that ALL 5 companies are originally from Japan?
Coincidence?
Pay attention to who they are suing. Japanese companies are famous for folding at the least sign of litigation (remember Rambus, anyone?) thus a likely first target to raise capital to start suing others. It would be rather nice if the Japanese sent some Yakuza over to negotiate.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Seller sues vendors for microprocessor patent infringement. Not news.
Seller wins lawsuit against vendors for microprocessor infringement. News.
Let me know how it turns out.
For big companies, the current patent system is great: big companies have big patent portfolios that they cross-license. So, they don't generally have to worry about each other. That arrangement keeps new competitors out of the market. And patent application and prosecution costs are high enough that the number of stupid patents filed and prosecuted by small companies are negligible in comparison. Occasionally, something like this slips through. But by and large, stupid patents are filed by the big companies themselves and then cross-licensed in an arrangement that helps big companies.
No, there's a common law concept called "submarine patent" that does in fact exist. "Common law" means there's no formal law on the books, but it's something that judges accept as being there anyway.
When you are legally wronged, you do not have the right to just throw your hands in the air while the problem gets worse. You have a responsiblity to mitigate, or limit, the damages as best you can. Just because the other person started a fire, you can't let it burn the whole place down and blame it on them if you had the chance to stop it as a small fire.
So, a company that is being wronged by having their patent violated has an obligation to assert that they have a patent as soon as they realize what's going on. They can't just sit back and watch the other venture, then claim the profits if it suceeds and disavow involvement if it fails.
The penalty for not mitigating when you can is having your damaged knocked back to the point where you could have stopped them. Which, in the case of a submarined patent means "Yes, they did infringe... but you're not geting anything close to the damage award you thought you were geting."
Because the manufacturers are more likely to settle. The producer of the OEM parts, whose entire business is based on the technology, is more or less obliged to put up a hell of fight.
These suits, although not legally, are basically extortionate. Nobody wants to actually go to trial, least of all the company bringing forth the claim. Said company just wants someone to mail money to their post office box in order that they be left alone.
Once one person buys a "license" they can then use this to spread FUD that said purchase "proves" their case. See SCO/Sun/Microsoft.
One possible defense approach is to argue that since the parts are purchased you are not the primary litigant at law. Plaintiff must first prove their case against the manufaturer of the part before you can be held liable for infringement. You may or may not be financially liable, but it isn't your job to defend the IP if you are not its genesis. If the argument is accepted by the judge this does not dismiss the case, but holds it in abeyance until the primary claim is settled.
Then the plaintiff must decide if they want to go up against the big gun or not. If they do not then the pending case will eventually be dismissed. If they do then at least the smaller fish has the big one as its ally, and if the big one prevails than the orginal suit may be dismissed as groundless.
If big fish loses then the settlement may be held to have sufficiently compensated the plaintiff and the suit against the smaller fish may be dismissed so long as they no longer infringe. Which they're not likely to do because the OEM source will have licensed the technology in order to continue to sell it.
While all of this is going on the legal issues become a bigger and bigger tarball encompassing more and more companies who are more and more likely to just settle and get it the bloody hell over with.
It's basically stealing the nerdy kid's lunch money.
KFG
Claim 1 does have some breadth. Arguably, though, this only covers systems with on-chip main memory (not cache) using more than half the real estate, some cache, and a variable-speed clock. Some microcontrollers fit those criteria, but they're not the most common ones. Bigger CPUs have off-chip memory, and low-end microcontrollers often have no cache system at all.
It is "if you can't beat them, sue them.
Fight Spammers!
Please examine US Patent #4,791,886, titled "Manner in which to relieve the American Judicial System from pointless lawsuits 3B", written by me. Specifically, I refer you to page 1,136 of the document which sets out the detonation of a thermonuclear device as the best way to destroy the office. I would also point out that three of the words in sentence #11 in the second paragraph also end with the letter G, just like in your post.
This is a serious infringement of my patent. Hire yourself a good lawyer buddy cause you're gonna get it.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
I don't know when the first Pentium came out with an on-chip clock, but that's probably not important anyway. I doubt if the patent is on the idea of an on-chip clock -- they can hardly claim to be the first people to have invented the concept of component integration! More likely they're claiming to have invented a design or manufacturing technique... oh well, might as well go look it up.
Yup, here's the 1995 patent application. It's too complicated for me, but they seem be claiming that their design manages to produce a steady clock signal even as temperature fluctuations play holy hell with the oscillations that produce the clock signal. Assuming I haven't totally mangled the concept, and that they really did think of this first, that's a pretty significant invention. It's certainly not on the same level as these business-process and software patents that we all love to hate.
Method and apparatus for restraining an animal on a vehicle
I fail to see how that relates.
This case seems like an attempt to captalize on unproven claims. By chasing after the end-user who does not have knowledge of the internal workings of the chip, it seems predatory. If there was really a valid claim of infringment then Patriot should have chased down Intel, not the end-users. But I guess this is the Intellectual Property game, chase down people that cannot defend themselves and then make money. Isn't that what SCO is saying they are going to do? File suit against an end-user that does not have the money nor the means to be able to prove that there is no infringment and then they win? Or make it so expensive to fight the claims that they cave-in and pay? Personally I would love to see laws that state that you can not hunt down end-users unless the claim for infringment has been proven. And then I would like to see penalities for filing suit against an end-user when someone by-passed the vendor, and the claims are proven wrong. It amounts, (IANAL) in my mind, to perjury -- making false claims in court and hoping that nobody catches you. So on the off chance that there is a closet-techie Congressman reading (heck I'll settle for a member of staff), Congress needs to make sure that intellectual property suits are aimed at vendors first, so the claims can be proven instead of the end-users.
Second, patents need to be tightened. Just because you come up with the idea of having a clock on the chip does not mean that someone else cannot come up with the a simular idea, but implemented in a different way, and make money.
You know, I have tempted to apply for a patent where URL's are spoofed using the latest Microsoft exploit for IE where the %01 is used to hide the real location of a web address. Then I'll sue Microsoft for violating my idea that I "came up with" in high school or something.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
reading claim 1 of the patent -
any single chip static microcontroller that incorporates a substantial amount of RAM on chip, has bufferred memory access, and can run at multiple clock speeds fits the description in this claim. I think some versions of Mitsubishi M16 Hitachi H8 had enough RAM to cover more than half the chip and existed as early as 1996. This patent probably is bogus.
Claim 1:
1. A microprocessor integrated circuit comprising:
a program-controlled processing unit operative in accordance with a sequence of program instructions;
a memory coupled to said processing unit and capable of storing information provided by said processing unit;
a plurality of column latches coupled to the processing unit and the memory, wherein, during a read operation, a row of bits are read from the memory and stored in the column latch; and
a variable speed system clock having an output coupled to said processing unit;
said processing unit, said variable speed system clock, said plurality of column latches, and said memory fabricated on a single substrate, said memory using a greater area of said single substrate than said processing unit, said memory further using a majority of a total area of said single substrate.
It is also important to note that dependent claims (for example, a claim that starts like "The apparatus of claim 1") contain every limitation of the claims that they depend on.
Techincally, for something to be prior art, the only requirement is that it have existed prior to the filing of the application. For something to be considered good prior art, then it will have to read on the claims in some way.
Good prior art can read on all, or some of the features of a single claim depending on which statute it is being used under. For prior art under 35 USC 102, the prior art must have (at least) every feature of the claims. For prior art under 35 USC 103 a single prior art reference does not have to have every feature of the claims, however it must be combined with additional references which have the missing features and give motivation to add the missing features into the first reference to acheive the system (method, apparatus, etc..) of a single claim.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
That explains it all. Translation: All we do is sue people.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Patent No. 6,598,148,
appears to be a divisional patent from patent No. 5,982,231, filed in 1989. In summary, the invention describes a CPU using both stack and register-based instructions which interfaces directly to DRAM memory over 32 shared address and data lines. Memory accesses are minimized by using mainly stack-based instructions and accessing memory in fast page mode. The invention is designed to minimize cost, fitting just tens of thousands of transistors into a 44-pin package, while delivering approximately 20 MIPS performance. While none of the design elements by themselves are new or unique, the particular combination chosen seems to fit the definition of a real invention that was not in existence before 1989.
The features which seem to relate to its claims of variable speed are the use of an on-board ring oscillator to drive the system clock, and memory cycle timing which automatically adjusts to the loading seen from attached memory devices. Using an on-board ring oscillator means that the system clock can be driven by a device built with process parameters identical to other devices on the chip. If CPU transistors are a little slow on a batch of chips, the ring oscillator transistors will be similarly slow and the chips will continue to work at a slower but reliable speed.
It's just not clear to me how Patriot Scientific can claim that companies like Intel are infringing on their patent. Is it because Intel's products contain technology which also happens to appear in their invention, but which they themselves did not invent? None of the individual technologies used in the Patriot device originated with them, and it appears that only the specific combination of those technologies described in the patent application would have qualified it for approval. However, the patent claims are written in such a way as to seemingly describe a much broader range of CPU designs, many examples of which were certainly in existence before even the original patent application by Patriot was filed.
I've seen it stated that the claims are the only important part of a patent. That seems to be the big problem with this particular patent. What happens when a legitimate invention is granted a patent with overly broad claims? Some patents are written with claims that include a range of claims, some very specific and some very broad, on the assumption that it's better to aim for as much as possible and settle for what you can get. This particular patent seems to have only broad claims. Does that make it easier or harder to try and overturn?
If someone steals a TV, then goes and sells it to a resale shop, do we consider the owner of the resale shop to be a TV thief?
Then why the FUCK do we hold the reseller of a product they neither designed nor manufactured liable for patent infringement?
If there were any sense at all to the American legal system, there wouldn't be this stupid tangle of a case because it would never make it to a judge - the court's clerk would be allowed to immediately burn the motion and sprinkle its ashes in whatever drug and cleaning agent cocktail the company's lawyer was drinking at the time.
Until now, the major corporations used patents mainly to keep the small guy out of the market, and by cross-licensing ensured that they didn't have to fear anything from each other. Here we have a firm that, by its own admission, lives by litigation. So offering them a cross-licensing deal doesn't work. A firm that holds just ONE key patent, but doesn't need that patent (and patents held by others) for its products, is immune to the cross-licensing snare, and can cause a whole lot of trouble for the big guys.
I think that if a few more companies get into the litigation business this way, the molochs will start using their influence to get the patenting system overturned. Of course, the fact that Patriot is sueing Japanese firms and not American ones, may be an indication that they are afraid of exactly that. But I have no worries that IBM, Intel and their peers won't catch on.
This exampe shows how important it will be to create a more effcient patent system in the world.
Economists are very critical about the patent system at large, but I believe the quality of patents has to improved, the quantitiy has to be reduced. A way to do so it to set high standards,
But in the WIPO the lawyer community drafts extension to patentability. Patent law is not evil per se, but in dynamic industries it does not suit. Patents were never designed for services. In Europe FFII and many other organisations were able to build a mature counter-force to the lawyer's lobby groups. However they are in the international and governmental institutions as experts and design their own patent law.
How to get rid of bad patents? can therefore be translated to "How to create balance in patent legislation?". It makes little sense to hunt down trivial patents. The bugs are in the patent system and have to be fixed. Patent attorneys are not intrested in a working patent system.
What to do?
1. Get organized. there are several US organisation, but there is not real US movement.
There is a very low-traffic US mailing list of FFII, JOIN.
2. Support petitions such as http://www.noepatents.org
3. Help to defend the European directive in Brussels (there will be a FFII conference in April)
4. Provide content and opinion articles about patent inflation on the internet.
The whole process is really bad.
I'm not defending Patriot but I think the reason that you get litigation only companies going after big companies is created by the patent process.
A small company with a few influential patents would be silly to try and stay in the technology business once they entered a legal dispute with a bigger company. If I have 2 patents and I sue you, I'm going to be counter sued and there are going to be patents I haven't considered that will force me to close my business. Bigger portfolios of patents will shut down active companies. Before you sue a bigger portfolio you have to shut down your own company to protect against countersuits.
The system doesn't serve anyone but lawyers.
You know they are a bunch of lawyers when they have a menu option called "Intellectual Property" under products. That is not a product. They should be thrown out of court. Besides, everyone knows the aliens invented the transistors for us :D
My 10 year old son runs Linux and codes html in a text editor, and is learning C++. I am taking away his computer, buying him a weight set and teaching him how to beat up other kids for lunch money. Then he can go to law school and become an IP Attorney. I don't want my son to be trampled by the bullies and the Idiots. If you can't fight `em join `em
The main vulnerability to which they leave themselves open is small upstarts like this: companies that aren't really producing anything other than patent infringement lawsuits, and thus don't have any incentive to cross-license. The large company usually has little choice but to either license the patent (if it looks like the cheaper option), or slug it out in court, hoping to drag the proceedings on long enough that the small party runs out of cash and drops it. Take Eolas for example: Microsoft still have a half-billion dollar ruling against them with regards to Eolas, and there's no opportunity for a patent infringement countersuit. Even IBM is vulnerable to this kind of attack, so don't be too sure they're overjoyed with the status quo.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
The patent application is very specific about using a ring oscillator to control the processor clock. Most processors use PLL (phase locked loop) devices to control their clock frequency.
Typically only asynchronous CPUs are clocked by free-running ring oscillators. Almost all CPUs on the market, including embedded CPUs, are synchronous designs and they come in fixed speed grades, which makes PLL clocking very attractive.
Even with PLLs you can vary the clock speed, e.g. when you detect that the chip is too hot or when the work load is low the CPU clock can be scaled down in discrete steps.
A ring oscillator provides a non-discrete (continue) frequency range, but on the downside its clock frequency is very unstable compared to PLLs, which is bad for synchronous designs.
There is also prior art: the early MIPS processor implementations had a free running multiplier, which operated as fast as the silicon would allow, even though the rest of the CPU was clocked at a fixed frequency.
In summary: this patent is not worth a lot.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I tried submitting this last week when I saw the article in the Union Tribune because the rhetoric coming from Patriot sounds disgustingly like the crap spewing from SCO.
Here are some choice quotes from the article:
"It would suggest that every PC manufactured after 1994 or 1995 is benefiting from this technology," Wallin said. As the company put it in a recent news release, "It is now time for Patriot Scientific and its shareholders to be properly remunerated."
Wallin added, "This sounds terrible, but we intend to get around to everybody."
Intel is taking action already. They have filed suit against Patriot to prevent Patriot from threatening them.
At least, I assume they do, considering that IBM has ~25,000 active patents
Don't assume anything. Companys like IBM file "defensive" patents all the time just to keep from being sued by little guys.
About 75% of the patent nightmares we've seen lately are from the tech bubble where high end companys go down the toilet. The decades of defensive patents become the best hope for survival and a new wave of patent lawsutes washes over the landscape.
I'm sure the surviving tech giants are sick and tired of not only having to file new patents but also for being sued by former giants who couldn't survive.
I don't actually exist.
What needs to happen is these "Patent" companies loose big in a few lawsuits and go under.. So when a company does go out and try to "Inforce IP rights" Thier stock value plummets.. So it would leave nothing but well founded IP claims and heaven forbid Notices to companies when they start selling technology that has potential IP right infringement and get it all sorted out before the product with potential of IP infringement goes mainstream.
Companies knowing that there is IP infringement taking place and not communicating with companies that are potentially infringing on thier IP should loose the ability to sue these companies for infringing. If a product is in the mainstream that does contain infringed IP there should be a grace period where time to remedy is given unless it can be demonstrated that the infringment was done with full or partial knowladge of its potential for infringment.
It just seems to be the easiest way to due business these days as you can file and obtain board patents and sit on your hands till its well into the mainstream then sue everyone(well people that make money on it anyways) without cost of actualy development or marketing and associated costs with possible product failure. So it would seem that is would be the best business practice for maximizing profit margins when you don't actually need to do anything but have a team of high priced lawyers and a good engineering teams that have a good feel for the marketplace and what technologies will hit the mainstream and how to capitilize on them trough broad sweeping patents that will cover the core essential mechanisms that these technologies will require to properly function.
There shuold be some legal mechanisms put in place to prevent the IP equivilant of "Cyber Squatters" to domain names... If companies file and obtains patents for technologies they have little or no interest in bringing to the market they have no right to prevent anyone else from doing so or taking legal action against companies that invest/develop/market these technologies.
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
not loose, lose
looser
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Sticking two existing things together and calling it something new has a long history. The guy who first stuck an erasor on the end of a pencil (named Hymen Lipman -- I'm not making this up!) got a U.S. patent on it! It was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because a pencil manufacturer decided to fight it.