Intel Sued for Patent Infringement

mfh writes "All Computers Inc. has filed suit against Intel for infringing on US Patent (5,506,981). Apparently Intel utilized patent-conflicting circuitry to determine the frequency of the input signal to the microprocessor, including Pentium processors. All Computers is asking for the tidy sum of $500 million USD."

Comments

Another Lawyer money maker

[stecoop]

Did anyone notice that the details are missing in the lawsuit? I read the patent and it I couldn't tell if they were seeking rights to the theory of relativity or dual processor technology. I suspect its speed step technology but who knows. Law cases are getting really thin now-a-days.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[julesh]

Looks to me like they're claiming rights to the circuit that's used to generate the internal processor clock signal from the FSB clock signal.

From they phrasing, they originally designed this circuit for use in "daughterboards" that let you put a fast CPU onto a slow motherboard, which was common back around the 486 days.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is symptomatic of having every rich kid's parents pay for them to do law, and many of them not ending up in law... but business.

So what you have is alot of "legally aware" a-holes who love to try and push every "business advantage".

They are the other side of capitalism. On one side of capitalism you have inefficient state intervention. On the other you have vested interests who don't want to have to face dynamic markets, they want everything to be wrapped up, safe and secure, for them.

It's funny that the same people outsource, and yet they are afraid to compete on price with other companies. They are the high priests of globalisation, and it's about time they were recognised as anti-capitalist. These people don't believe in the free markets, they are just on whatever bandwagon it takes to make a profit. The minute someone starts doing something more efficiently than they do, they have a huge cry and resort to the law.

That isn't capitalism, that's just greed.

I for one would like to see more economists speaking out against these people as anti-capitalist anti-innovation leeches. We all get to where we are in science because we stand on the shoulders to giants who contributed their work for free to the public domain. Now these leeches make minor alterations and claim they should have a monopoly on the one logical solution to a problem for scores of years. Fuck that.

That's not innnovation and that's not capitalism. That's the logic of daddy's little little lawyer, who got their job through family connections, corruption through fraternities or a degree from one of the "elite" institutions which allows these smacktards to identify each other.

There needs to be a capitalist revolution whereby all these people and their anti-capitalist practices are smashed. Because if you aren't a well meaning socialist and if you aren't a well meaning capitalist, I can only thing of one more catergory: criminal.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[pe1chl]

It also explicitly claims that the incoming clock is divided down to 4 MHz (this exact figure is give n more than once) and then locked to the new clock.

Intel processors do not use this frequency, they use 33 MHz.

So what is the point of all this?
When Intel are violating this patent, they at most are violating some of the claims but not all of them.
Isn't that required for it to be a patent violation?

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[TheHonestTruth]

Except that the true capalists are the people that want a monopoly (that's what patents give you) and want to enforce whatever monopoly they have.

You can view it as greed if you like, but the language of business is money.

That aside, not all lawyers come from rich families or go to Yale because their Dad's a senator. Some are working class schmoes that had to take out $100,00 loans to go to school and end up working in the county DA's office pulling in only $30k (guess how long those loans will take to pay off) because they want to keep the drug dealers off the streets.

Not all lawyers are bad, not even all IP lawyers are. What are your opinions on Lessig and the EFF's law team?

-truth

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean 486toPentium.exe wasn't enough?

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"... because they want to keep the drug dealers off the streets."
I am not a fan of illegal drugs but I am also not a fan of "THE DRUG WAR". A "drug dealer" who sells pot to cancer patients is in a different category than a meth dealer. Lawyers who spend their careers "fighting (illegal) drugs" are hypocrites, in my opinion. Q: Should they "fight" alcohol? A: Yes (in 1926) No (in 2004). Q: Should they "fight" pot? A: No (in 1900) Yes (in 2000). Q: Should they "fight" tabacco? A: No (in 2000) Yes (in 2050 ??)
How much money do we spend on prisons for non-violent "criminals"? How many of them are ENRON executives who stole billions of dollars? How many of them are minor pot dealers?

"Not all lawyers are bad" - ... Maybe not, but I think the majority are. I do not even trust my own lawyers that much (and I sure don't trust yours).

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[ThisIsFred]

Um, actually it looks to me like they're claiming patent on a PLL circuit.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[mike449]

Intel can argue that their processors are not "accelerator boards" and thus are not subject to the claims. All of the claims talk about 3 distinct things: the motherboard, the accelerator board and the fast microprocessor installed on the accelerator board.

As for the frequency synthesis/multiplication, this is a well-known technique used by radio engineers probably since 1930-s if not earlier.

I am sure (although too lazy to do the search) that Intel has patents of their own covering frequency multiplication inside microprocessors, most likely predating this one.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

YAA - Yet another Acronym.
Let me decipher PLL for the peeps... People Like Lucipher.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

phase locked loop. is what the parent was refuring to i suspect.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about things that are at LEAST two to three generations apart. Do you think lawyers live long enough that they cover all those issues from the dates you specified?

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think lawyers live long enough that...

As long as they stay out of sunlight, avoid garlic, and wear their "stake protectors" they should be fine!

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, prior art shows that the Commodore Amiga 1000 with Genlock(tm) could externally sync the video to an outside video source (so you could overlay computer video on top of the external video without breaking the master sync signal). The process not only changed/altered the video framerate, it changed the master oscillator rate (so CPU and memory were also re-synced). The system normally ran at 7.16 MHz, but would slow to 7.15909 MHz when syncing external video. 7.15909 MHz is exactly twice the NTSC colorburst frequency 3.579545 MHz. The frequency doubling was done with a flip/flop, and the sync came from the diff amp of a phase-locked-loop circuit. The Amiga/genlock came out with this external cpu frequency changer in 1985. I call PRIOR ART!

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

I was trying to say that a lawyer who devotes her/his career to fighting drug dealers does not deserve our respect simply for this. The notion of illegal drugs is not absolute; which particular items are considered illegal varies with time based on "popular opinion" (or the opinion of lobbyists). Some issues with the "War of Drugs" go back to Nixon. More recently, legislatures have created laws which punish "black" cocaine (e.g. crack) users with much harsher criminal penalties than "white" cocaine users; why is this? (I get my cocaine from my doctor - when I have sinus problems.) Lawyers (DAs) then use these unjust laws to punish minorities. Why should we respect lawyers in cases like this?

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Vengie]

What is even worse is when you're from a working class family and you manage to get into Yale, and then you realize you can't go directly to law school because you have aforementioned 100k in loans from undergrad....so now you work as a paralegal instead.

Thank you for at least putting a stop to the senseless class-bashing on slashdot.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Brandybuck]

On one side of capitalism you have inefficient state intervention. On the other you have vested interests who don't want to have to face dynamic markets, they want everything to be wrapped up, safe and secure, for them.

Actually, the only way they're able to wrap stuff up safe and secure, is through that inefficient state intervention. After all, what is a patent but a state granted monopoly?

These people don't believe in the free markets, they are just on whatever bandwagon it takes to make a profit.

The very rich have never been believers in the free market.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[orangesquid]

if this is accurate, IT NEEDS MODDED UP.

please? can someone with mod points look into the validity of this statement?

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[Anonymous Coward]

"and you manage to get into Yale, and then you realize you can't go directly to law school because you have aforementioned 100k in loans from undergrad"

Is this a real story? My experience is that the Tier-1 schools (Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, [are there any others]) are eager to loan you more money even with >$50K pre-existing debt.

Yale's financial aide office knows very well that a Yale Law graduate is stastically very likely to be able to pay off $250K in loans.

A legal section on /.

[herrison]

We need one. Please!

Re:A legal section on /.

[DiscoOnTheSide]

Agreed. la la la.. I'm not taking enough time to send this message, la la la

Re:A legal section on /.

[NodeZero]

Yeah, there are too many illegal sections on /. =)

Re:A legal section on /.

[thebes]

I believe that's called the Microsoft section. But seriously though, he makes a simple, but good point. The legal issues surrounding the developing technical world aren't being taken seriously enough. Todays engineers in training are simply being shown methods of doing things without understanding how they may be infringing on IP law. In class I've taken over the past couple of months, there were people there saying that "they're engineers, why the hell should I care what my product does? I just get paid to do something." Did Intel credit any sort of source material? With a lot of open source code for example, people don't care if you use it, though they do like to get credit for it. Engineering is a cut-through field, but that doesn't mean we can't extend the olive branch every now and then to help each other out. A legal section on /. dealing with issues of patent infringement or more generally, IP law, should draw more attention to a growing issue that will not disappear overnight.

Re:A legal section on /.

[herrison]

Heck, I'd read a book on IP if someone wrote one for geeks. It's pretty clear where my rights start (well, end...) when I'm coding for my employer, but I've known a number of problems occur in the recent past with freelance projects. Usually when some clever sod in a company starts worrying about "IP" without knowing much about the subject. It's a buzz phrase.

Patents out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you patent the idea of determining a clock rate using circuitry? This is redickulous. Patents have gotten way of out hand and need to be reigned in NOW!

Hopefully Intel will now see the light and start to throw their weight behind those of us who have seen this all along.

Re:Patents out of hand

[Sc00ter]

Yah, and having like 20 different patents for 20 different ways to make a paper bag makes sense.. And most of those are rather old..

This isn't new.

Re:Patents out of hand

[drmancini]

Yeah ... next thing you know, the fella behind the big bang will sue intel for inventing silicone _______________________________________________

Re:Patents out of hand

[DrMrLordX]

Intel makes breast implants? Whoa. Far out.

Re:Patents out of hand

[drmancini]

don't know about that ... have to check a friend of mine's breasts for intel inside logos

Re:Patents out of hand

[emilng]

If it's a guy, they're probably natural.
... unless he's a really big fan of Intel.

Re:Patents out of hand

[HeX314]

The effort and money required to "reign in" the patent system would be greater than the cost of the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq, etc. Every company that has a patent would fear that their patent would be rendered null and void, and they would do [almost] anything (and in some cases, anything) to protect their interests. We don't need a slashdot law section. It's the (cliche) equivelant of a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Re:Patents out of hand

[OhHellWithIt]

Actually, this one looks to me like a legitimate patent, by which I mean, it wasn't some so-and-so patenting something that is patently obvious to anyone. Maybe using harmonics to generate a faster clock speed is obvious to you, but it struck me as clever -- not, "I'll patent the notion of one-click ordering" or "I'll patent the sun".

Re:Patents out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

drmancini: Yeah ... next thing you know, the fella behind the big bang will sue intel for inventing silicone

DrMrLordX: Intel makes breast implants? Whoa. Far out.

Just wait until the overclockers get ahold of those.

Oh wait ... overclockers, girlfriends ... Never Mind.

Re:Patents out of hand

[pcmills]

Unless it is cheaper for Intel to pay the 500 million and shutup about patent reform.

If patent reform goes through, how many Intel patents would be invalidated?

Re:Patents out of hand

[AAAWalrus]

Anonymous Coward Wrote: How can you patent the idea of determining a clock rate using circuitry?

Answer: You can't

From the US Patent Office Website:
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

The patent that was filed in 1999 is an approved and recognized patent for an "Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers". It's basically an accelerator board that creates a "phase relationship" between the clock signals from the system board and accelerator board. In order for them to win the lawsuit, they have to prove that Intel did in fact use this exact method to achieve some sort of signal acceleration and sold it without license. The $500 million sum is probably a maximum amount, so that if they win the suit, the actual damages will fall within that amount. Seems to me it will be hard to prove that Intel crossed that fine line between patent infringement and the usage of common theory and practice.

Re:Patents out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you patent the idea of using a browser plugin? There is prior art. This doesn't seem to matter any more. My suggestion is that everyone go patent something, or you will be left out of the "Patent Boom". It only costs 2-3000 plus a filing fee.

You stand to make 1/2 a billion if you can get some clueless judge to agree with you.

If you can't beat them, you may as well join them. At least if you own the patent, you won't get sued. You don't have to go around sueing anyone.

I am sorry if I sound like one of "them" but let's face it. The battle is lost. The precedents are set, and that's it. Now everyone will be winning their suits.

hopelessly yours,
AC

Overdrive

[GigsVT]

This looks like it covers something more like the old "DX2" overdrive chips and things, where you install a second chip to upgrade the first. Makes you wonder why they didn't try to sue years ago.

That's just from my preliminary reading though.

Re:Overdrive

[stevew]

Well, it looks like it's more fundamental than that. Further, I would challenge this one in court because it is obvious to someone skilled in the art, i.e ME!

It looks like what they have REALLY patented is the method used to multiply up clock frequencies within a phase locked loop system. I would imagine there is prior art on this one going back 50 years.

If this patent is up-held, I would imagine 75% of all chip designs violate it! This is the same mechanism you use to take a 32Khz clock in and derive 3.2Mhz (or whatever multiple you want..)

Re:Overdrive

[IPGrover]

"I would challenge this one in court because it is obvious to someone skilled in the art, i.e ME!" -- Keep in mind that it had to be obvious at the time it was filed, in 1993. I'm not so well versed in the history of chip development to know if that would be the case, but if it wasn't obvious then, and for whatever reason it seems obvious now, then that would be pretty good evidence that these guys came up with a great idea (at that time) that everyone is now making use of without compensating the inventor.

Re:Overdrive

[Tired and Emotional]

Yes and the filing date was 1993. I remember speed up boards from the 80s and the concept of using a phased lock loop to derive a higher frequency from a lower goes back at least as far as the 80s - I would be surprised if it was not at least a decade older than that. It should be possible to find it in a number of text books or application notes from the period.

So it seems likely this will very quickly go down in flames due to prior art.

One thing it does show you is the value of a well stocked computer museum! Such a museum would probably be able to show boards embodying prior art for this one.

Re:Overdrive

[GigsVT]

Intel was shipping overdrive capable boards in 1993. They may have been shipping them earlier than that.

Of course, the claims are so fundamental and broad, that something even like IBM's "CPU on a card" that they used with some of their PS/2 series might even qualify.

And that's just in the consumer market. I'm sure theres even more potential prior art if you look at server-class hardware from the 80s.

One day nothing will be able to be done

[machine of god]

Because someone will own a piece of every idea.

And people will wonder why the US falls behind in tech.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Anonymous Coward]

That one day is today.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[StaceyRey]

...and the US can't do a whole lot about patents infringed outside of its borders, either. If a foriegn goverment has nothing to gain by enforcing a US patent, it's highly unlikely that they'll even consider doing so.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Amiga Lover]

Because someone will own a piece of every idea.

And people will wonder why the US falls behind in tech.

I see that as what will break the camel's back.

As soon as areas in Asia keep bounding ahead, further and further, and the US is dragged under by constant patent battles (except for the big 2 or 3 megacorps with patents... patents that don't apply in Asia anyway) then something will have to be done. Things will be changed with legislation, or they'll fall apart.

Either way, it can't be kept up indefinitely

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[picz]

>And people will wonder why the US falls behind in tech.

But your lawyers are getting better and better every day. /picz

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[jamesh]

Patents are necessary for technology to advance in the private sector. So many people fail to get this. It's how patents are applied that is the problem.

If All Computers spent time and money developing an idea and then Intel just ripped it off, then they deserve to be paid. If, on the other hand, they just had a good idea which would be obvious to anyone who was aware of the problem, and are trying to capitalise on it then they deserve to be severely beaten about the head with web newspaper.

If your investment in time and money is just going to be ripped off by someone else then nobody will do it. It has to be protected somehow and patents are the best method they have come up with.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[dmayle]

Patents aren't totally useless, but they way in which they're being used nowadays is kind of dangerous.

Personally, I think patents should only be issuable to people (individually, or groups), not companies or corporations (even though they have "person" status), and if licenses are offered, they should have to be same for every licensee.

This would still offer the protection and encouragment to independant inventors, which is why the patent system was designed. In fact, it would offer active discouragement to companies to seek patents on their research, as licensing would have to made available on equal terms.

Competition would be increased, as larger companies don't have to worry about lawyers or defensive patents, and would have the legal go ahead to emulate or improve their competitors.

This would also cut down on bogus patents, because, suddenly, all companies who wish to use a tech would have incentive to root out prior art for original ideas. In addition, patent submarining (like the whole JEDEC-RAMBUS fiasco), should be decreased, because the actual submission process for use would constitute prior art!

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether you are american or not, but you are foolishly assuming that america will conform to what the rest of the world does - this is simply the least likely action to occur.

The most likely action to occur will be that a series of complaints to US legislators will add to an "anti-asia" climate as the tiger economies surge ahead. Said anti-asia climate will cause the US to put preassure on the WTO to "punish" asian countries in violation. If the WTO says "but you have been ignoring our requests to stop subsidising your steel and agriculture illegally" the US will declare the WTO to be ineffectual and apply unilateral trade santions on the asian economies.

You think america operates in the interest of capitalism? no, america operates in the interest of america.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[sql*kitten]

In fact, it would offer active discouragement to companies to seek patents on their research, as licensing would have to made available on equal terms.

And how, then, do you propose that expensive research gets funded? Higher taxes I suppose?

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[PastaLover]

Well in this industry it doesn't really matter that much. Since the chip industry is already very capital intensive and research into new technologies is kinda expensive, this is one area where patents might actually work well. It doesn't seem to me they are patenting purely ideas (like one would with software) but rather a technology, which took much more time and money than simply the idea, to develop. It is just this kind of application that patents aim to protect.

In any case, the patent is most likely not valid. The wording of a patent should be clear and readable. It seams to me like this is a faulty granted patent and if Intel doesn't settle the court will most likely throw it out.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Mr. X]

Patents are issuable only to people. Those people can later assign the rights to a corporation.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[dmayle]

It doesn't discourage research, it just discourages patents on research. In Japan, the patent process is very long, end exceedingly public, which gives other companies time to work on an idea, and improve it enough to make it different before the patent is granted. As such, patents have much less worth in Japan, but that doesn't stop the breakneck speed of research and development. What I'm talking about would still offer patent protection to independent developers, but would increase competition among large, established companies.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Anonymous Coward]

With the power US exerts on other countries to enforce patents, it's not just US which is going to fall behind, it's the whole world.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[AK Marc]

And how, then, do you propose that expensive research gets funded?

The same way it is funded now. Do you think that all companies will purposefully decide to abondon all progress because someone may take an idea of theirs? I think that the incentive to innovate will *increase*. Velcro was a stagnant invention since it was patented. The patent owner, during the patent life of Velcro, invented a better Velcro, but kept it from the public. This was a purposeful action to prevent competition (with thir own product) by holding back innovation. Then, just before the patent ran out, they patented modifications of their patent. They will continue the cycle as long as possible to have a monopoly over the largest amount of the market they can. It isn't about innovation, it is about preserving the monopoly with the government as the enforcer.

Or, to make it into a sound bite, eliminating patents will increase overall funding to reasearch and speed release of new products to the public.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[russotto]

Patents ARE issued only to individual inventors. And non-discriminatory licensing is no panacea either. It lets the big players play free while pricing the little guy right out of the market.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Herr Joebob]

It isn't about innovation, it is about preserving the monopoly with the government as the enforcer.

This is exactly correct. Patents grant the inventor exclusive use for the patent duration, with the condition that his invention be made public afterward. The 'public afterward' part is what patents are intended to encourage. 'Exclusive use for the duration' is the carrot to encourage inventors to not keep their innovations proprietary.

Without the exclusive use part of patents, any small company that tried to make their innovations public could be quickly squeezed out of business by a larger company that can ramp up higher volume with lower marginal costs.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Tablizer]

Personally, I think patents should only be issuable to people (individually, or groups), not companies or corporations (even though they have "person" status), and if licenses are offered, they should have to be same for every licensee.

Actually, I think there should be a fixed "patent fee" amount on all products. Owners of patents then battle over which percent they get per product. The primary benefit is that one can make a product without worrying about surprise patent suits. Second, it moves the legal fighting from the producers to the patent holders. Thus, more products are released because the risk goes down.

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Tablizer]

Actually, I think there should be a fixed "patent fee" amount on all products.

Clarification: actually I mean a fixed percent, such as 3 percent.

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Deusy]

What are you trying to say? I didn't get it.

Is it really worth it to them?

[ShatteredDream]

With the Eolas victory, this and other previous lawsuits, you'd think that the big guys would push for the ending of patents in their industry. It's not like they have much to lose. Patent machines couldn't come after them and they'd not lose their position in the marketplace.

I have always had a problem with patents (not industry specific protections like for pharmaceuticals) because I don't believe ideas and methods should be property. As a Christian I find the idea that humans invent knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive. Copyrights can encourage creativity, patents just encourage people to make a product then rape and pillage their industry.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[ivan256]

So does that mean if you come up with some novel idea, intel or some other big company should be able to profit from it, while you don't because they have the capital to persue the idea and you don't? Would it really benefit society if people could only earn money through either manual labor, or being part of the already established business community?

Patents are one of the few ways new, little companies and inventors can get into the market. Without them the only entities that would ever make money are the established players. Patent abuse and a broken patent system, by themselves, don't make patents in general a bad thing.

As a Christian I find the idea that humans invent knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive.

People finding things ludicrous without non-religous justification, or offensive for non-sexual reasons don't typically change policy.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[k-zed]

Patents are one of the few ways new, little companies and inventors can get into the market. Without them the only entities that would ever make money are the established players. Patent abuse and a broken patent system, by themselves, don't make patents in general a bad thing.

The question is then, what makes them a bad thing; because they are a bad thing, as it would seem these days.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[Anonymous Coward]

finally something I can agree with a christian on :P

As an atheist leaning agnostic I also find the idea humans "invent" knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive. I assume you refer to the fact that you believe god thought it all out first? Well the concept I hold is that our minds are socially constructed, and therefore all the building blocks we have a socially obtained, hence anything build with those blocks might be the "first" of such a combination. But it is by no means impossible that another man can come up with the same idea independantly, therefore for ownership to be given according to who though it out "first" is stupid.

The only incentive for such an "ownership" being in a capitalist sense so that inventors have time to manufacture their ideas properly. But that should have a MAX limit of three years. If you haven't got your act together by then, you are a fucking idiot, or a troll. And after that three year max, you should be competing on price, not on the fact that you had an idea that anyone else with the same building blocks and the same problem could have solved.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[Vellmont]

Patents are necessary to protect the investment that gets put into a product. A very good example where patents work is the pharmaceutical industry (the problems with that industry stem from causes other than patents). Without patents to protect drug makers they'd never want to spend the hundreds of millions needed to develop a drug. Producing the drug is cheap, so anyone can come along and make a generic and destroy your ability to pay back the R&D expenses.

One of the big problems is that patents last for too long in the IT industry 17 or 20 years might as well be forever since everything moves so quickly. The other big problem is that patents are given out willy-nilly with the expectation that bad patents will just lose if a lawsuit is ever filed.


As a Christian I find the idea that humans invent knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive

And this is one time that I'm glad there's seperation of church and state. I think you're going a bit far in calling a patent to be knowledge. It's an invention, not knowledge. It's not really property either since you can freely discuss, explore, etc the subject of patents. You just can't sell or distribute infringing material. I'm a little unclear on the specifics of this, but it seems like writing code that uses patented technologies is OK (like XvId and the Mpeg4 patents), but compiled code isn't.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[little1973]

I have read many comments which supports patents because patents defend the little guy. However, this argument is completely false.

First, as I read in a comment a few days ago, if the little guy has a patent on something, then most probably the big guy has several patents on things which the little guy uses. Cross licensing comes into effect, so the big guy is the winner here.

Second, this little guy vs. big guy is only happening because the entry to the market is not free. And it is not free because patents and other IP laws restrict entry to the market. Without them entry to the market would be much easier, so there would be much more firms on the market competing with each other than now.

Third, patents create a kind of slavery. You have an idea, you patent it, then tell about it to somebody. However, that somebody cannot use your idea because it is patented. It can be said that person thoughts is owned by you. We can call this situation 'Metal Slavery'.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[digime]

So does that mean if you come up with some novel idea, intel or some other big company should be able to profit from it, while you don't because they have the capital to persue the idea and you don't?

Not necessarily. But if you come up with some novel idea - have no intention of pursuing it, don't have the cash to pursue it anyway, and don't want to sell it - you shouldn't be allowed to sit back and keep society from benefiting from it. I don't know what the answer is, perhaps an "intention to pursue within n years" amendment to patent law, which went into effect when the patent was granted, and every time the patent changed ownership. So you couldn't hold an idea hostage for very long unless you actually used it. Maybe that would prevent companies from existing just to sue other companies.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[curator_thew]

> As a Christian I find the idea that humans invent knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive.

You are welcome to your opinion.

If you want to change the global state of society to concur with your opinions:

(a) have a majority elected to parliament;

(b) go off and find/form your own state;

Good luck.

By the way, under the correct system: ideas are not patentable per se, but certainly methods are.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[mjrauhal]

Indeed; I've said it once and I'll say it again: The more patent challenges arrive towards big business the better. Not because the challenges are ethically sound, but because it'll always slightly add incentive for them to change their lobbying ways.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[ivaradi]

You probably meant "Mental Slavery" :)

It can be added, that the whole concept of Intellectual property is bogus. Something can be property, can be owned only if it is scarce, i.e. if it is owned by somebody it cannot be owned by anybody else. IP is information or knowledge, which is not scarce. If you tell somone something that you know or know about, you will still continue to know it (to possess that information). Yet, the other person will have that information too. So IP is not and cannot be property.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[Decameron81]

"So does that mean if you come up with some novel idea, intel or some other big company should be able to profit from it, while you don't because they have the capital to persue the idea and you don't? Would it really benefit society if people could only earn money through either manual labor, or being part of the already established business community?"

Yes, we need some level of protection. The problem is patents, at least as they are now, are not the solution at all. Especially if you look at how long their life is.

Their purpose should be to grant the person that came up with such idea, a fari remuneration for his efforts. As they are now, they are an incentive for companies to sue everyone in sight and ask for really absurd ammounts of money. I mean, ok stealing an idea is a bad thing... but 500 Million US dollars? I think we are highly overrating ideas.

Diego Rey

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[HBPiper]

Don't patents sunset in 17 years? I realize that it is a long time for an individual, but it is a blink of an eye for the race. I watched a TV show recently about the man, Al Gross , who invented the "Dick Tracy" watch and cell phones back in the 40's. He patented the idea, but it had expired by the time it was technologically feasible to implement.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[PaschalNee]

With the Eolas victory,
This Eolas victory? Looks like it is still very much a live issue.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[no longer myself]

Without patents to protect drug makers they'd never want to spend the hundreds of millions needed to develop a drug.

Every once in a great while, the pharmaceuticals come up with a halfway decent idea, but how many different prescription allergy medications do we really need? Louis Pasture came up with the first vaccine for anthrax well over a century ago, and yet Bayer is sitting on the Cipro patent like it was something new. We've got a quazi-effective erection pill, a myriad of anti-depressants that kill your erection, and yet there's still no cure for cancer. Virtually every diet pill ever conceived has eventually been pulled off the shelf, and heaven forbid they come up with a cure for stupidity, less the people wake up and smell the burning coffee.

In the area of pharmaceuticals, all we've seen are reformulations and rehashed drugs that just "shift" the side effects around. "Ask your doctor about prescription Foo to see if it's right for you."

It's not modern medicine. It's the same old scam that's been around since the days of the apothicary... Only back then they sold drugs that were potent enough to kill you quicker.

Yeah, they need patents to protect their investments, because next year they'll have to invent another pill to replace the last one that was shown to increase the risk of liver disease, kidney failure, breast cancer, prostate enlargement, fatigue, and poverty.

And if you're dependant upon a presription drug just to stay alive... Oh buddy... Do I feel for those people. That's gotta suck to know that every day of your life you have to "milk Thufir's cat". Something tells me that you're probably going to defend those big corperations and their patents with your life... Litterally.

(You could defend them with mod points too, but it's still obvious that you're shilling.)

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[Barto]

Huge companies aquire mountains of patents. Huge companies use cross licensing agreements to protect themselves from each other and the little guys still get screwed.

Patents don't give small companies a chance to screw big companies (why should they be able to anyway, even if they do come up with good ideas?), they just let big companies screw little companies and individuals even more.

Barto

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[Vellmont]

Louis Pasture came up with the first vaccine for anthrax well over a century ago, and yet Bayer is sitting on the Cipro patent like it was something new.


Cipro is a powerfull antibiotic that was not developed to treat anthrax, but as an antibiotic to treat diseases that had become resistant to other antibiotics. The fact that there's a vaccine (with suspect dangers) for anthrax, a very rare and non-contagious disease unless you happen to be a grazing animal doesn't negate the fact that you need to treat it if someone is exposed to anthrax. People aren't vaccinated against anthrax routinely because there's more risk for the vaccine than there is that you'll actually be exposed to anthrax.

You're right that the drug companies aren't all they're cracked up to be. But you're wrong that drug companies haven't come up with usefull products that help some people. The AIDS drugs are a good example of this. You can survive AIDS now because of drugs developed by the pharmeceutical industry (well, if you live in a developed country). Without patents, these drugs would likely never have been developed. The drug companies have been stupid however with their patents and tried to enforce them in third world countries where no one can afford the AIDS drugs anyway.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to defend the drug companies, merely the idea of patents. The drug companies are probbably one of the most evil industries in the world right now. They spend most of their money on advertising ineffective drugs towards everyday consumers, not on developing new drugs. That, however is not a result of the patent system.

Drug companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise at all, really. Doctors should be deciding what drugs to prescribe to patients, not patients influenced by marketroid speak. Even doctors have a hard time getting objective information about what drugs are effective, and which aren't. Most of the information about a drugs effectiveness comes from the drug companies themselves.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[TrancePhreak]

IP can also refer to the data on a CD for say, a game or a program like 3DS Max. Now the company that puts the data on the CD needs to have their data "insured" so that everyone doesn't just copy it and they never make any money.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[ImpTech]

Fourth, getting patents is EXPENSIVE! It would be tough for me to invent something in my basement and get it patented, because I don't have a couple hundred thousand dollars laying around. Hence big companies patent everything under the sun, while the little guy gets nothing out of the system.

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[JInterest]

Patents are one of the few ways new, little companies and inventors can get into the market. Without them the only entities that would ever make money are the established players.

Frequently stated, never proven, and contrary to all available evidence.

New little companies that try to enforce patents will find that they themselves are in violation of a large, established player's much larger patent portfolio and unable to match the large, established player's legal war chest.

Unless the new, little company produces nothing but patent litigation, in which case, they are unlikely to infringe on a patent, and equally unlikely to do anything useful with the ones they own. Is that what you are defending?

Re:Is it really worth it to them?

[ivaradi]

Of course, no one is forbidden to protect their data as well as they can. Because the data is protected, it does not become intellectual property, it is simply information that is not shared.

The main problem is that copyrights and patents are forced on everyone, because there are certain institutions enforcing these "rights" and everyone has to finance these institutions through taxation. Effective protection may be difficult from a technological point of view, but that is still not a reason for establishing and operating such insitutions.

If a company wants to protect their data, they should have to finance it themselves entirely and take the responsibility and the consequences for their actions. For example, they could use some DRM technology. DRM is generally considered dangerous, but it is dangerous only if backed or even mandated by laws.

Holy extortion, batperson!

[Willeh]

The way i see it, the basic principle of determining frequencies by using a step-up board is pretty common. I didn't more than skim the patent, but it seems to me this kind of stuff has been used for years in a similar sort of way in radio's and other tuning equipment.

So either these guys are gonna be the SCO of the semi-conductor world, or their crack is pretty good.

Re:Holy extortion, batperson!

[shaitand]

"So either these guys are gonna be the SCO of the semi-conductor world, or their crack is pretty good."

I don't see how you find this to be an either/or situation. Doesn't being the SCO of anything by definition mean your crack is good and your smoking lots of it?

Re:Holy extortion, batperson!

[ScooterBill]

I always thought the whole idea of a patent was to protect the inventor of a brilliant idea. There are so many ideas out there and yet few of them are truly novel. It's like patenting the little cardboard ring that they put around a paper coffee cup at Starbucks to make it easier to hold. This isn't a brilliant idea. However the invention of styrofoam is. In one case you are describing a common idea(using an insulator to protect your hands from a hot item) and the other is inventing something that hasn't been thought of before. You could patent a new way of manufacturing of cardboard rings and that would be patenting a novel idea.

So when Amazon patents the one-click approach they are are simply patenting a feature not a novel idea. If they were patenting a new database concept or algorithm, then sure.

It all boils down to how detailed a patent can be and whether that patent is for a novel idea or just a specific application of a common idea.

M

Lets add this up

[millahtime]

So, Pentiums have been out for about 10 years. There have been at least hundreds of millions of those sold. So, what.... they are asking for a dollar off each chip. That isn't to bad in the overall sceme.

But, look out for them to increase the price because of this.

Re:Lets add this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at it this way: Would you be willing to give thes sueing company an extra dollar for every pentium chip you ever owned? Kindof brings it into perspedtive when you have to write the check...

Re:Lets add this up

[ForestGrump]

Also, why did they wait so long humm?
If they had used intel years ago, that would mean $1 loss per proc to intel.

Now however, it means having to pull $500 mil out of their pocket.

To Intel, i'm sure the finance guys would have wanted the $1 loss per chip rather than $500 mil.

They probably just figured this out and that is why they are suing.
-Grump.

Re:Lets add this up

[eXtro]

It's the 10 year wait that bothers me. If they'd have filed suit the first year and won then the damages would've been a lot smaller and Intel would either license the technology or develop something different. This tactic while not new (think of the GIF patent - wait till something is commodotized then send out the lawyers) is mean spirited.

I've got a bunch of patents (through the company I work for) in the semi-conductor industry and had to defend one once. The violation was caught early, a licensing offer was made but refused and then the lawyers were called in. Other cases that co-workers have been involved with are either similar or cases where technology is used as a bargaining chip. "Shit. We are violating your i.p., we just happened to notice that you're using works derived from our patents X, Y and Z. How about we cut a deal?"

If the company I'm working for behaved in this manner it'd be a negative influence on my longevity here. It by itself might not be enough to make me leave but there's a point where enough negatives accumulate to a desire to change employers.

Re:Lets add this up

[mwood]

Yes, isn't there a legal requirement for the plaintiff to limit damages by not taking forever to get around to trial? Certainly one can get in trouble for filing suit and *then* wasting months with foot-dragging (presumably to run up the damages), but what is the standard for showing that you couldn't have given notice to the defendant earlier given that the alleged violation has been ongoing for years?

Re:Lets add this up

[Lost Engineer]

I woulnd't do it voluntarily but I think if they sued me I'd settle.

You have to ask the questions:

[Crypto Gnome]

Major Corporations like this have squadrons of patent-attorneys (or whatever you call them) to handle this stuff.

This is a case of either:

• complete incompetence
• astounding arrogance

Either way it's a significant embarrasment for Intel as well as a non-trivial financial issue.

Re:You have to ask the questions:

[mwood]

Major Corporations, yes. I've never heard of All Computers Inc. Just how major are they? I couldn't find a listing for their securities, and yes, I did check Canadian exchanges.

This might be good

[Syberghost]

$500 million might be enough to get this changed; it might be cheaper to bribe enough Senators to get a bill through.

Re:This might be good

[Anonymous Coward]

$500 million might be enough to get this changed; it might be cheaper to bribe enough Senators to get a bill through.

I think you might have invented a law similar to godwin's law here, I shall name it in your honour.

Syberghosts law: In America, it is foolish to sue for more than it costs to bribe Senators to change the law.

Re:This might be good

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an article with a little more detail. Note that the globe points out that they want an injuction against shipping any Pentium processors. That's going to cost intel way more than 500 million. It'll give AMD, VIA and the rest a big leg up in the x86 market. Well untill they get sued.

Re:This might be good

[Anonymous Coward]

you need about 300 members of congress. (plus a president)

this means only about a million each

our members of congress have more integrity than that, maybe 5 million a piece, but you have to setup 300+ accounts in the Caymans (cash or crack for the bush clan).

Re:This might be good

[NewToNix]

"bribe enough Senators"

You do not bribe senators. You rent them on a cost per day based on the chances of future rentals.

At the end of the rental period they are often rented to some one with an opposing viewpoint.

This is what gives rise to the interesting phenomena of "I voted for it, before I voted against it."

It has nothing to do with "It depends on what the definition of is, is".
That behavior is caused by other forces.

Appropriate Sig: Get a job in the oil industry, then you'll feel OK with a vote for Bush.

Enough's enough already

[drizst 'n drat]

A sues B, B sues C, C sues A, ad nausium. When is all this going to stop? It seems like it's getting to the point where everyone has something that (intentionally or not) impacts someone else. I say enough already and let the best product win.

Re:Enough's enough already

[maximino]

Ah, but that's the point, see? It used to be that a patent was something that you got in order to safeguard your important advance so as to avoid the "free rider" problem -- that your competitors wouldn't be able to mooch off your R&D costs.

But now that so many patents are granted where the major expense is the patent application itself, the whole point of the exercise is to assemble a huge portfolio so that no one in the world can do anything without infringing on one of them. Then none of your competitors can sue you for patent infringement because you swap licenses. The only person who doesn't benefit from this arrangement is someone who's come up with something brand new and has only one true innovation, putting the whole original idea of the patent system on its head.

Anti-Counterfeiting Tech or Power Management?

[G4from128k]

Speed sensing would seem to be useful for anticounterfeiting - the chip could determine if it is being run at higher than rated speed. Either that, or the chip could use the clock rate to detect power-saving modes - disabling parts of the chip when the clock rate drops.

What's Intel using the allegedly patented tech for?

I second that motion

[millahtime]

A legal section on /.

I second this

In Related News......

[write_with_numbers]

Coke is filing suit against Pepsi for making a drink with sugar and carbonation and Thomas Edison's grandson is filing suit against GE for using his grandfather's invention of electricity in many of their products without Edison's written permission. I'm really begining to take more interest in the few companies that actually work instead of trying to sue to get ahead.

Re:In Related News......

[Anonymous Coward]

edison didn't invent electricity. natural forces are discovered not invented. besides edison championed DC. Tesla and Westinghouse were the AC proponents

Re:In Related News......

[Anonymous Coward]

Edison didn't invent electricity, just promoted DC. Much of GE's stuff uses AC current which was developed largely by Tesla.

Re:In Related News......

[shadowcabbit]

In addition to whatever else my sibling posters might say, Thomas Edison founded GE. You have a valid point, but next time please check your facts.

Re:In Related News......

[mwood]

Uhhuh, while the Franklin family watches the Edison case with interest, and an ancient Greek clan whose ancestor coined the word "elektron" is watching them....

Re:In Related News......

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really scary seeing comments like this person's. He/she has absolutely no clue about the real legal issues involved in these lawsuits and yet is passing judgment about their social worth.

Europe

[sleepnmojo]

At least this sort of thing can't happen in Europe. Oh wait....

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to ruin the funny, but it can - this is a circuit that they claim to have patented, not a piece of software. Europeans have been able to patent circuit designs for a long long time.

Coming on the heels of Integraph

[sacremon]

Integraph has just recently gotten Intel to pay them a large sum of money for patent infringment on, you guessed it, the pentium processor. In their case it involved the technology with the memory. Integraph is now off to sue everyone who used the chips who were not covered under the Intel deal. They just got a settlement from Gateway, and are supposedly aiming at HP next.

I imagine that the success that Integraph has obtained, which was after a very long, drawn out battle that took years, has given this company the idea that they can indeed win a suit against Intel, and given the precedent of the Integraph case, far quicker than Integraph.

The American Dream (TM)

[JohnCC]

Step 1: Patent generic idea
Step 2: Wait a few years for people to adopt it
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!!

I'm waiting to sue for my patent "eating food whilst surfing the internet". I'm gonna be rich beyond my wildest dreams!

Re:The American Dream (TM)

[WIAKywbfatw]

Step 1: Patent generic idea
Step 2: Wait a few years for people to adopt it
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!!

You do realise that I patented this "Step 1... Step x: Profit!" formula years ago, don't you?

Any day now I'm going to announce my patent licensing scheme to the world and Slashdot, crippled by the potential fees, is going to capitulate and become my biatch.

So, say goodbye to the reign of Taco and hello to the reign of WIAK! The King is dead: long live the King!

Re:The American Dream (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

As Americans don't use/understand the word whilst this patent will be invalid here.

Re:The American Dream (TM)

[Snowmit]

Too late!

I've patented "A method for extracting money from others for perceived civil wrongdoing" (colloquially known as 'sueing'). So I'll see you in court.

Good with that, because I've patented "Defending yourself from a method for extracting money from others for perceived civil wrongdoing" as well.

Re:The American Dream (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

I have patented the using of "3. ???" when step 3 isn't necessary, right?

Just for the record, I have 1 through 10. I didn't have enough $ to get the rest.

Legal Section on /.

[jobsagoodun]

Its called Groklaw!

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[trippin_efnet]

"I'm sick of ... whiny people..."

are you sick of irony too?
...

I agree

[mfh]

> As a Christian I find the idea that humans invent knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive. Copyrights can encourage creativity, patents just encourage people to make a product then rape and pillage their industry.

I agree with both of these sentiments. The universe has existed far longer than humanity, and therefore it is totally impossible for us to invent anything beyond method, and all methods are available to us since the dawn of time. While I may be Christian, I am a science-based one; ie: the Bible is a good reference for parable and theories for understanding, and I believe that is the purpose of the tome.

That said, the patents seem to go against the scientific flow of time, by blocking inventions that build on the history of human science and discovery.

Why we have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to build a useful product or service is why we are evolving slower than we could. Darwin said that impediments in evolution, or road blocks, must be removed for a species to adapt and overcome. Are we going to adapt? To me, patents infringe on life and our chances of survival as a species.

Re:I agree

[afxgrin]

The idea is to make you pay for not having to revinvent the wheel everytime.

There's some pretty complex wheels out there.

Re:I agree

[jason777]

While I may be Christian, I am a science-based one; ie: the Bible is a good reference for parable and theories..

In that case you're not a Christian. As Christians believe that the bible is absolute infallible truth.

Why we have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to build a useful product or service is why we are evolving slower than we could.

Ummmm, you cant be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution. Besides, the idea that humans evolved from another species is ridiculous. If thats the case, if we are just a product of chance, then that renders the value of human life meaningless.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, am refreshed to find someone who can accept some faith and moral guidance without being so retarded and close-minded to believe that anything, and especially the obviously-not-literally-true Bible, is "absolute infallible truth."

Re:I agree

[36-bitter]

Please distinguish between the Bible being absolute infallible truth, and what some self-styled Christians think it says, which in many cases is arguably utter nonsense and even contrary to Scripture.

Take the rather astonishing conclusion that one can't be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution. The Bible doesn't say how God made anything, and despite what you were probably taught, it doesn't necessarily even say how long He spent doing it.

Acceptance of evolution does not require that one deny the existence of God or the truth of what is provable in the Bible. Science in general does require that, however much you may believe in deity, you not import any magic into your reasoning, because magic robs reason of all its useful qualities.

I must say I'm even more astounded by your assertions about the value of life in a self-elaborating cosmos. Even if no one else assigned meaning to our lives, we can and we do. Whether our distant ancestors did or did not walk on their knuckles has nothing to do with it.

(Sorry, everyone: I know this is going rapidly offtopic, but I felt it had to be said.)

it's your method

[millahtime]

I doubt it was the idea of determining that there is a patent about but a method for determining it. That can be patented and methods like this are common to patent.

Now, there are many implementations to determine clock speed, if intel used one that was patented then it was there bad.

Doctrine of Laches?

[DrPizza]

I mean, really. Pentiums?! This should be thrown out at the first opportunity. But then, the same was true of Eolas....

lawsuits, the new IT business model.

[Vellmont]

SCO, Patriot Scientific, and now All Computers. It's the last cry of a dying company. Fire off the intellectual property missiles and hope they hit something before you get squashed by the counter-suits that're sure to be filed.

After a quick read

[the real darkskye]

It looks like the patent is describing any method of running hardware components at speeds faster than the frequency line on the board.

This vaugly could be anything including having a clock multiplier on the CPU (Look out AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta, VIA, HP, IBM, Apple, anyone else!) however as it was only filed in '93 I think intel can claim prior art with this, given the 80486 DX2/4 used frequency multipliers .. although I can't recall when they were released.

That aside, its now friday afternoon and its time to clock watch to 5pm!

Re:After a quick read

[Anonymous Coward]

Claim 1 limits the scope to solutions that replace a microprocessor with another faster one. And those solutions that use this PLL method.

So in effect, it only applies to upgrade processors.

(now, granted i'm sure there's prior art with that preceding 1993)

Re:After a quick read

[ratboy666]

Its not a clock multiplier. The idea is to use a common subfrequency of the two clocks: eg. FSB may be 100Mhz, Processor may be 400Mhz, a common subfrequency would be 4Mhz. This common subfrequency used to drive a PLL which can synchronize the clocks to reduce latencies.

Ratboy.

Re:After a quick read

[deathazre]

5PM? lucky... I worked 7A-6P today. Yes, if you look in the patent... (emphasis mine) Other solutions have switched the replacement microprocessor clock rate from the new higher speed to the clock rate of the slow speed system board for data transfers with the slow speed system board, but with the advent of microprocessors with clock doubling or tripling on chip, it is often necessary to have a stable frequency for the new microprocessor clock. I gathered that the patent only applies to a conversion board...

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[DrMrLordX]

I'm sorry, but this REALLY needs to be done. Moderators, please activate your social justice circuitry before modding this.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, America fucks YOU!

Yakov Smirnov is a genius. I love this country! Thank you.

Bell Labs

[SillySnake]

I had a professor tell me this story, and never bothered to go back through and check on the truth, but I assume it to be true :)
He said that Bell labs actully had to wait several years for a patent on the idea of an Field Effect Transistor (FET) to expire before trying to create their own. However, it was while they were trying to create the FET that the BJT was mistakenly invented.
Just through it was an interesting story about the effects that pattents have on society.. Can you imagine where the computer world might be if we'd gotten the transistor 5 years earlier or even more? It's an exciting thing to think about, and raises questions about patents.. Perhaps we could have cured cancer with that extra computing power.. Maybe we could have cured AIDs.. Or maybe our video games would be that much cooler ;-)

Re:Bell Labs

[Anonymous Coward]

BJT... B.J.T...

Boy Juice Tea? Yeah Yeah can anyone else come up with a better explanation for this acroynym. And those of you that know it just shut up and let the real guessers guess.

Re:Bell Labs

[e1618978]

Bipolar Junction Transistor?

Re:Bell Labs

[GileadGreene]

Can you imagine where the computer world might be if we'd gotten the transistor 5 years earlier or even more?

Uh... Bell had to wait for the patent on one kind of transistor (the FET) to expire before they could (inadvertently) invent another kind of transistor (the BJT). Given that the transistor apparently already existed (since it was patented) there was no "5 year wait for the transistor" before we could have a computer. Perhaps there was a "5 year wait for the royalty-free transistor", but that wouldn't prevent people from building computers from transistors if they'd been willing to pay the fees. More importantly, Bell Labs could presumably freely experiment with FET fabrication (and thus inadvertently develop the BJT), they just wouldn't be allowed to freely sell the fruits of that labor before the patent expired.

Perhaps we could have cured cancer with that extra computing power

Or perhaps not. This kind of speculation is useless. Curing cancer isn't like brute-forcing an encryption scheme - it's not a matter of pure computational power.

Re:Bell Labs

[SillySnake]

The transistor didn't exist.. The idea of how to build one did..
And as far as cancer goes, I know it's not a brute-force encryption scheme.. That's pretty obvious :) What I meant to imply, is that researchers use *gasp* computers to aid them. Perhaps having developed computers sooner, they would have been able to use computer aided research sooner, and perhaps, and I mean PERHAPS, found something before now.
There's a lot more that computers do besides compute long equations you know.

Re:Bell Labs

[GileadGreene]

The transistor didn't exist.. The idea of how to build one did..

And Bell labs were quite free to play with that idea, and then to pay royalties on any products that they developed based on that idea. Who knows, maybe the patent would have expired by the time they actually managed to develop a real product. Then we would have had the transistor 5 years eailer than we did and would have achieved Nirvana by now.

What I meant to imply, is that researchers use *gasp* computers to aid them. Perhaps having developed computers sooner, they would have been able to use computer aided research sooner, and perhaps, and I mean PERHAPS, found something before now.

And what I meant to imply is that *gasp* it's not clear at all that any kind of computer-aided anything would help find the cure for cancer (assuming that one exists). Computers may help, or they may not. Your speculation is agreat emotional appeal, but it's essentially meaningless. We might also have had the cure for cancer by now if we'd banned professional sports (so that researchers would more time doing research instead of watching TV), or stopped all research into computers (so that more people would work on the cancer problem), or encouraged research into mathematics (so that researchers would have better tools for mathematically modelling cancer).

There's a lot more that computers do besides compute long equations you know.

No! Really? And here I thought they were just glorified calculators.

Re:Bell Labs

[AK Marc]

And Bell labs were quite free to play with that idea, and then to pay royalties on any products that they developed based on that idea.

I see people here claiming that patents encourage research, but then it is quite obvious that others companies will not try to improve an item if they will have to pay (if the patent holder lets them) to use the original idea or improvement. It seems much more likely that the abolition of patents will do much more to stimulate research than the patent system does.

Re:Bell Labs

[mesterha]

Just through it was an interesting story about the effects that pattents have on society.. Can you imagine where the computer world might be if we'd gotten the transistor 5 years earlier or even more? It's an exciting thing to think about, and raises questions about patents.. Perhaps we could have cured cancer with that extra computing power.. Maybe we could have cured AIDs.. Or maybe our video games would be that much cooler

Or maybe we still wouldn't have transistors since companies would be less likely to do research since it would be harder to profit from the results.

Re:Bell Labs

[Grym]

By dwelling on minor issues, you just missed the entire point of his post.

It doesn't matter if there was a five year wait or a five day wait. The fact is that patents, by their very nature, unnecessarily stall human acheivement by subscribing to this misguided notion that men just conjure up ideas without any help from their society, sciences, experiences, and so on. By trying to limit what ideas (intangible objects, mind you) are "mine" and "yours", we not only waste time in circular discussions but fail to advance as a whole.

"Curing cancer isn't like brute-forcing an encryption scheme - it's not a matter of pure computational power."

You sure about that? What if we knew exactly how proteins fold? What if we knew what every single gene in the human genome did? These are topics we extensively use computers to help understand and where faster computers are becoming necessary. I assure you, if the above were true and we couldn't cure cancer at that point, we'd at least be damn close.

-Grym

Where have you been?

[TheHonestTruth]

Haven't you seen the stories here about the EU giving software patents the "ok?" It's not just the US my friend. Patents are in force everywhere.

-truth

Patent text

[Anonymous Custard]

Not being an electrical engineer, when I read this I thought it sounded link something Professor Fink would invent:

Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers:

Abstract
An accelerator board for use in replacing the microprocessor of a slow speed system board with a microprocessor operating at a higher clock speed. The clock signal of the accehhhhlerator board is derived from the clock signal of the system board by first deriving a sub-harmohhhhhnic frequency which is a common denominator of both the system board and the accelerator board clock signal glaven!, and using the sub-harmonic signal to control a phase locked loop oscillator to provide the desired clock speed for the accelerator board...

At least evil doers do not hold the patents,

[Anonymous Coward]

nor are they mentioned in the patent database.

It's NOT called Groklaw

[mhesseltine]

What people want is a section like Apache, Apple, Games, etc. for legal items. That way, if the talk of lawyers, lawsuits, etc. nauseates them, they can block that section.

Re:It's NOT called Groklaw

[f0rt0r]

I think in IRC-speak this is "/ignore legalese*!*@*planet.earth", though klining them off the IRC server would work just as well. ;)

All Computers Inc.???

[Anonymous Coward]

All Computers Inc. has filed suit against Intel for infringing on US Patent (5,506,981).

Okay, this is the one and possibly only story where this has been oh so appropriate...

All your Computers are belong to us!

Re:And where were you when this all happened?

[sylvester]

Well, I believe he's got "soap" covered. And ballot, for all you know. Maybe you should choose your quotes more carefully.

Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[blorg]

...that's why patents start with the most general claims and work down to the specifics. In this case, the general claim for the system is made in (1):

1. In combination, a computer system board having a socket for a first microprocessor and a clock for generating a first clock signal intended for the operation of said first microprocessor; an accelerator board connected to said socket to replace said first microprocessor;

said accelerator board having an upgrade microprocessor thereon for operation under the control of a second clock signal having a frequency greater than that of said first clock signal;

means responsive to said first clock signal for generating a sub-harmonic signal at a frequency that is a common denominator of the frequency of said first clock signal and said second clock signal with a known phase relationship between said sub-harmonic signal and said first clock signal; and

phase lock loop oscillator means responsive to said sub-harmonic signal for generating said second clock signal in known phase relationship to said first clock signal.

4Mhz is mentioned further down as a more specific implemention of this general claim [in (4)].

Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[roju]

See, I always thought that with patents, it's the specific implementation that matters. If I make a widget and use a flux capacitor to power it, and patent it, and then the guy next to me makes a widget and uses a flex capacitor, then he's ok.

That was my understanding, at least.

Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[blorg]

You are right that it is not the idea of doing something but the method of doing something that is parented. But there can be levels of generality with regard to that method, and it is often left up to the courts to decide what is invalid due to prior art, what is legitimately covered, and what infringes.

So *for example* if you invent a method of a frequency multiplier because you need to use one in 4Mhz steps, it is reasonable that your patent would also cover someone using an identical implementation except with 33Mhz steps.

If someone else can implement a multiplier with a different method entirely, they are OK.

(Note I am *not* claiming that there in any validity in this patent, I'm just using grandparent's example.)

Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[pe1chl]

>f you invent a method of a frequency multiplier because you need to use one in 4Mhz steps, it is reasonable that your patent would also cover someone using an identical implementation except with 33Mhz steps

That does not sound unreasonable. But when that is the case, *why* does the original patent so explicitly specify the frequency to be 4 MHz??
I was amazed when I read that. I would not expect such an implementation detail to be specified in a patent.

It is an interesting invention to have a PLL-driven frequency multiplier as a clock source for a microprocessor (although such a PLL by itself, and its use to multiply a reference frequency by some factor, is of course a pre-existing invention).

The patent does not say anything about the input and output frequency, but it does mention the 4 MHz intermediate.
To me, it seems like an integral part of the claims. Probably one that should not have been included...

Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[Surt]

Patents require not only an idea, but an implementation. It used to be that you had to actually give them a piece of machinery, but more recently you submit a detailed account of the hardware that you actually built.

So presumably, this company actually built a piece of hardware with a 4 Mhz step.

Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[IPGrover]

Actually, you CAN patent a mere idea. Patents require a "reduction to practice." That reduction to practice can be either actual (where you actually make something) or constructive (where all you do is explain how it's done, usually in the patent itself), so you don't actually have to make something to get a patent. More interestingly with regard to the discussion above, I'd like to point out that the 4Mhz limitation is found in dependant claim 4, which depends from claim 1 (that's why it says "A combination as defined in claim 1..."). When doing an infringement analysis, you look first at the independent claims (here, claim 1), which "stand by themselves" so to speak and you look to see if each and every element of the claim is present in the allegedly infringing device. If that is the case, claim 1 is infringed and that's the end of the story. The purpose of the dependent claims is to "protect" the independent claims from challenges to their validity. So if someone came along and could prove that everything in claim 1 had already been done, the patent holder can turn to the dependant claims, which hopefully include an additional novel feature, and try to assert those dependent claims and their additional features against an infringer. Of course the infringer would also have to infringe the dependant claims. One other aspect of the 4Mhz limitation is that it provides "claim differentiation" and arguably broadens the scope of claim 1. Basically, because the 4Mhz limitation is NOT in the independent claim, and it is found later in a dependent claim, it suggests that the independent claim covers 4Mhz as well as 33Mhz, or 66Mhz, or what have you. To make things even more clear, independant claim 1 includes "means plus function" language, which really makes figuring out what it means a PITA. The patent office doesn't allow you to just say "means... for generating" and get coverage on every single thing under the sun that could ever generate anything. What you have to do with a "means" clause is look to the detailed description portion of the patent and find the structure that performs the specified function, here "generating." The patent then covers the structure disclosed and substantial equivalents thereof... I won't get into what constitutes a substantial equivalent, as I've wasted enough time on this already.

Sadly this is true...

[blorg]

We need one. Please!

Software Patents in Europe

[BlueUnderwear]

Today is the last day that European ministers can still make up their mind about the highly controversial European patent directvie. In theory, the vote already happened last Tuesday, but some countries, such as Poland have changed after having realized that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes...

Result: today, we're just two votes short of blocking the controversial software patent directive.

We're now at a stage were even the smallest European countries can make a difference! If any small country, who so far has voted yes, changes its vote into no or abstain, we can send back the proposal to COREP, and prevent the worst from happening.

Patents are design a pro-big business measure

[ShatteredDream]

So does that mean if you come up with some novel idea, intel or some other big company should be able to profit from it, while you don't because they have the capital to persue the idea and you don't? Would it really benefit society if people could only earn money through either manual labor, or being part of the already established business community?

Does it benefit society to allow people to restrict who can build on their ideas? This patent is most likely based on an idea that was the base of one Intel used. In other words, Intel built on someone else's idea. The prick who patented it in the first place, in turn built it on someone else's ideas.

Patents allow people to sit on ideas until someone else decides to actually put them to use. What you're not taking into account is that a bigger company might also have a better idea of how to use the patent. They might already have something they're working on that would better utilize the idea(s) than the little guy. I see no reason why either should "own" the ideas, since society is better off by allowing unfettered creativity.

Patents are one of the few ways new, little companies and inventors can get into the market. Without them the only entities that would ever make money are the established players. Patent abuse and a broken patent system, by themselves, don't make patents in general a bad thing.

The patent arsenals that the major companies have cannot be overcome by a few from a small competitor. Reality is very different from the fiction of a perfect free market where everything works well. In the real world, any upstart stupid enough to challenge the big players would get crushed by patent suits themselves. Do you honestly think that IBM couldn't find 50 patents that the small competitor was violating?

In reality, patents only protect those who get to market first and then it protects them into a lock over their competitors. It is a little known fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine that only certain industries need them, ie the industries that require incredibly large sums of research dollars to be spent like the pharmaceuticals.

Re:Patents are design a pro-big business measure

[ivan256]

Does it benefit society to allow people to restrict who can build on their ideas?

If you add "for a limited time" to your question, then yes, it does. It gives a reason for people to create and, more importantly, to publish. If there is a fear the effort put into creation will come to nothing but the financial enrichment of somebody else better able to exploit an idea, the idea may never be published, but kept secret. Don't forget that patents contain (or are supposed to anyway) full documentation of how to reproduce an invention, and that document becomes public domain at the end of the term. Would people publish their ideas as frequently if it weren't for patents?

Please don't take my comments as a defence of the current US patent system, but of the patent concept in general. It's a good idea, but a flawed implementation. If I were to change it, along with improving the review process I'd try to work in compulsory licenses and shorter terms...

Re:Patents are design a pro-big business measure

[AK Marc]

If you add "for a limited time" to your question, then yes, it does.

The problem is that the limited time seems to be fine for the industrial age level of innovation, but the world moves faster now. The time of expiration should decrease accordingly. What is the point of a patent that lasts much longer than the item covered is marketable? The effect is that derivative works generations past the original technology are still encumbered. This results in a slowing of innovation because other companies can't build on the technological foundations of others.

UK MEP voting records

[Moderation abuser]

There's a web page which lists various MEP's voting records on the issue of patentability of software.

It's on the FFII UK web site:

http://www.ffii.org.uk/analysis_uk.html

With the European elections coming up. It's a good time to have a word with your MEP. It might also be worth asking them why they exist at all if the council of ministers can ride roughshod over the will of the parliament.

You never know, it might sting them into action on the upcoming vote or replace them with MEPs who *will* vote the way you want them to.

Re:UK MEP voting records

[pommiekiwifruit]

Thanks for pointing out that website! After seeing that Richard Stallman was speaking in London tonight I went out to listen to him and it was very interesting!

Patent Pending

[Bruha]

I think it's time we have a section and icon for patent issues. Would be nice to look at this mess of patents in one section.

Re:Patent Pending

[WildThing]

Ummm.... WE DO!! Topic Number 155

If it Was

[Greyfox]

Microsoft would have already done it. They're constantly in patent litigation. Don't expect any company to try to make the system go away entirely either. They don't want to spend billions in research dollars just so someone else can come along and ride their coat tails for free. They might even like the current system, where all patents get rubber stampped and sorted out in the courts.

B.K. v The Big Mac.

[theirishman]

It is a very gray area...

Its like saying that McDonalds can sue Burger King for the idea.. its a me too system.

"Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers"
Has any one ever taken out a patent on adding more memory to a PC..? as could I be sued..!

If Intel have developed a similar "Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers" it looks like it was logical in terms of the next step to take in processing power.
For a company to infringe on a patent is has to be almost a carbon copy...most larger organization "actively" look at different patents to get ideas. This is the nature of the beast..

Not Even Close!!

[WildThing]

IANAL but..

From reading the patent, It appears to Me that this patent was on a method of installing CPU upgrades to a computer. For example those cards that took a 386 to a 486 or allowed you to exchange the CPU for a faster one and increase the clock speed. These types of cards are about useless anymore! Besides, this patent was applied for in 1993 - I am VERY sure there is prior art. I can remember these types of upgrades as early as 1986. Hell, NEC was offering upgrades as early as 1981, albeit not this type, but it DID upgrade the CPU and increase the clock speed. It was that old V20 CPU and a clock crystal to upgrade your 8088 PC and increase the clock from 4.77mhz to 8mhz. (Hmm.... I* wonder who else on here actually used one of those besides Me?)

It'll be interesting to see how this playes out, but seems to me that this is a poor attempt by a company that has no market anymore to get a few quick bucks. --- Hey, I wonder if any SCO people are thier relatives ?!?

Where do these guys buy pants?

[Raven42rac]

It seems it would be pretty difficult to buy pants big enough to hold their gigantic balls. But seriously, it takes guts for a little company to go after such a huge one as Intel. If Intel is found to have violated the patent, then by all means they should pay All Computers. But Intel could have just as easily reverse engineered it, and used the exact same layout by chance. Any lawyers that could clarify this? If it is still infringement if someone reverse engineers it and comes up with a similar or an exact copy of a patent?

Re:Where do these guys buy pants?

[49152]

>Any lawyers that could clarify this? If it is still infringement if someone reverse engineers
>it and comes up with a similar or an exact copy of a patent?

IANAL: But it is my understanding that a patent basicly protects an implementation of an idea. So yes a reverse engineered solution would be considered infringement of a patent if the implementation is basicly identical.

I just cant wait

[Coupier]

It becomes increasingly apparent to me that first contact will go something likes this:

"Welcome to Earth"

"Nice one. Thanks, really." [Whispers to adjacent green blob, "OK, stand down the megadeath lasers"].

"So, what can we people of America.. whoops, 'Earth' do for you?" [90% of the human race watching the historical event squirms with disgust]

"Well, it appears that you chaps have been exploiting the process known to you as 'respiration'. I'm afraid we patented this approximately 7 billion years ago. You owe us a rather inconveniently large stack of cash... in fact your mathematics aren't sufficiently advanced to describe it. Oh, and in fact we need a word with SCO too..."

So where exactly IS All Computer's??

[21chrisp]

A google on All Computers seems to lead into oblivion. While, a small russian computer store of the same name is near the top of the list. Sounds to me like $500 Million may be more than their lifespan's total revenue. Apparently Intel is at fault for keeping this company of chip geniuses from gaining any sort of market presence what-so-ever. Intel must be to blame for the fact that this company came up with some amazingly trivial circuitry over a decade ago and has continued to produce such revolutionary products that no one has ever heard of them.

Re:So where exactly IS All Computer's??

[ratboy666]

ALL Computers Inc.

Mers Kutt

Taught Computer Science *before* there was such a thing -- Math professor at Queens.

Created the first "personal computer" -- the MCM/70 in 1971. Ran APL, so not very popular among the home set.

Created the first circuit to add memory management and virtual memory for 8086 based PCs.

Won "Upgrade Product of the Year" from Ziff-Davis for the ALL/Chargecard.

Made CPU upgrades for older PCs (286, 386 to 486).

Pretty well done now (I don't think Mers will actually "retire" though). If Intel infringed, I guess Mers will get his pay-out. Good for him.

Ratboy.

Wow!

[ThisIsFred]

Is this patent overly broad. I mentioned in another post it appears to be a patent on a PLL circuit. However, since all chips need to sync to another signal, and CPUs / GPUs in particular use a multiple of the host signal, every processor produced by everyone in the PC industry is potentially infringing.

The USPTO basically allowed someone to patent the synchronous computer. Read the text of the patent, it reads like a 7th graders description of how a PC works.

Re:Wow!

[addaon]

On the one hand, yes, it's grossly implausible that All Computers (who?) should have a patent on this, and I'm sure there are some nice refereed journal articles that count as prior art, along with lots of IBM lab note books, do recall that at one time we didn't have this, and processors did run at bus speed.... up until the 68060 in motorolla land, the 601 in mac land, and the DX2 in intel land, if I remember correctly.

Re:Wow!

[taniwha]

well yes and no - it's a patent on the use of a PLL in clock generation for a CPU on a 'daughter card' - proving that an integrated CPU/bus unit is a cpu on a daughter card is going to be quite a stretch - they are up against Intel's lawyers after all ....

It's actually one of the more clearly written patents I've read in a long time (that may be their undoing :-) not a lot of claims and easy to read - but certainly there's prior art up the wazoo for PLLs and CPUs - besides using a PLL to do this doesn't pass the obvious test (how else would you do it?).

It was filed in 1993 - I'm sure there's prior art in the PC and Mac space (people were building Mac accelerators like this in the '80s)

Advice

[DiscoOnTheSide]

Cheer up, emo kid!

Ever heard of Mers Kutt?

[Anonymous Coward]

You bunch of gringos, you crucify then investigate. Turns out Canadians are quite proud of All Computers' Mers Kutt and his milestone achievement in personal computing. Doesn't seem as though he is one of those run-of-the mill litigants Read this to understand why. . .

Patent Date?

[bogidu]

Ok, I may be way off base and I expect someone to correct me . . . But the Pentium was released in March of 93 when the patent was filed in October of 93. ????

Kinda pointless now

[Atilla]

Isn't this about those OverDrive processors we saw back in mid 90-s? e.g. turn your old 386 into a 486DLC?
These guys are sure taking their sweet time calling Intel on it......

In other news, Commodore has been making accelerator boards for the Amigas way before PC's - you were able to override the stock 68000 processor with a 68020 or 68030, or if you're l33t, a 68040 *gasp*.. The upgrade always came on a circuit board the size of a large video card.

Re:Kinda pointless now

[Anonymous Coward]

And GoldCards for the Sinclair QL.

RTF Patent!

[ca1v1n]

Unsurprisingly, 90% of /. either hasn't read the patent, or made up their minds before they did anyway and weren't paying attention. This is not the "breathing, in the general vicinitiy of a computer" sort of patent. It's extremely precise. I'll dumb it down for you and just tell you that they basically patented using Phase-Locked Looping to allow a processor to run at a higher clock frequency than the motherboard knows how to deal with, when the GCD of the processor frequency and the motherboard bus frequency is 4 MHz. After reading so many vague and broad patents, this one is a real breath of fresh air.

So, when would you get a situation with a 4 MHz GCD? Well, it would probably happen when installing a pre-MMX Pentium, 486, 386, or 286. If you further examine the patent, you notice the mention of cache on the convertor board, so we can probably rule out the 286 and the 386.

It is of course entirely possible that Intel still uses something like this to allow fine-grained control of clock speed, but given their general aversion to helping out overclockers, I doubt it. If Intel did infringe, which wouldn't surprise me, they can probably show that $500 million is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the total revenue they received on infringing products sold at market-driven prices, since most people got their pre-MMX Pentiums with new motherboards, rather than use convertor boards. Furthermore, given how much time has elapsed since then, Intel may have a valid claim that All Computers failed to enforce their patent in a timely manner, and thus failed to mitigate the damages, giving them protection under both patent law and general civil law.

If I had to guess, I'd say Intel heard from All Computers's attorneys, did some back of the envelope calculations, offered them $10 million to go away, and All Computers didn't go for it. Sadly, with the existing highly adversarial method for introducing technical evidence that the jury is explicitly picked to not be qualified to evaluate, winning heavily inflated patent claims is quite feasible.

Re:RTF Patent!

[tiger99]

You are quite likely to be correct on all, or most, of that, but also the patent makes explicit mention of a board (containing new CPU and logic etc) being plugged into a socket. That is entirely different to having it all on-chip, the patent appears (IANAL) to not include that, so it is irrelevant anyway, and for the reasons you say too. But, the 4MHz is only mentioned in one of the claims, unless I am mistaken, so it is not really relevant, it is the more general claims that would matter.

If I weer Intel, I would have not offered them 1 cent, and billed them for my lawyer's time in answering them. They are just trying it on because of other recent cases, I think that this one, as we seen to agree, has no merit whatsoever.

Re:RTF Patent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post,

My own thoughts (whatever that's worth).

It is of course entirely possible that Intel still uses something like this to allow fine-grained control of clock speed

I think that it is probable that the inventor would have had to have convinced the atty's in this case that Intel was significantly infringing in order for the atty's to become involved in the case.

thus failed to mitigate the damages, giving them protection under both patent law and general civil law.

I think the patent law concerning laches specifically overrides any general civil law considerations:

One has six years from when they should have known about infringing activity to give notice of infringement in order to extend tolling of damages back to a maximum of six years (there are exceptions to this rule).

offered them $10 million to go away

All Computers is stating that Intel ignored their requests for licensing negotiations completely. I do not know if this is true or not.

I think that we are seeing a new era in patent litigation where a large corporation is better off negotiating a reasonable license with a smaller concern if the patent could be valid.

This could be one of many where the little guy wielding a potentially valid patent gets p@#ed off because of no response from a big corporation and is subsequently able to sucessfully secure financing in order to initiate litigation on the matter.

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Keebler71]

First off, I doubt that the original poster AC is american. Can't quite pin-point it, but his/her writing style seems non-American English. For instance, they used the British spelling for "Coloured" whereas in the US one would use colored.

anyway, while I doubt anyone has tried to correlate IQ with political affiliation, the FACT of the matter is that Republicans are more educated than Democrats (as a group). Of course one can argue that education != intelligence, but lacking any IQ data, this is what we have to work with.

Finally, I have no idea who Phil Henry is. Given the context, I assume you are referring to Phil HenDRIE, a popular talk-radio host. I have two news-flashes for you: Phil Hendrie is a self-admitted SOCIALIST (he voted for Gore by the way), and second, his show is an ACT, and the joke is on you.

to continue

[kardar]

They shouldn't be allowed to ask for a cease and desist, or something like that. Holding a patent for the purposes of preventing anyone from using it serves no purpose.

Nah

[mfh]

> The idea is to make you pay for not having to revinvent the wheel everytime.

Why should you have to pay for a wheel? Imagine if everyone alive contributed to the decendants of the guy who first invented the wheel! Every car on the road would cost that much more, for example. That cost is prohibitive to our progress.

Information and design methods should be free from patent restrictions. Supply and demand always sort themselves out. For example, if you took all the patents away, customer service would improve greatly because companies would strive to be the best company, with the best service and reputation, in order to retain your business.

When patents come into play, you have companies who can dish out second-hand service because they hold the monopoly on X-invention, and that's bad!

Patents used to be there to protect the inventor's interests so that we could have more and more inventions, but nowadays the costs of patents are so prohibitive that they are pretty much pointless! Plus, most inventors are screwed out of their work far before they can obtain a patent, so the patents only serve to secure rights for those undeserving, 9/10 times.

Re:Nah

[GileadGreene]

Why should you have to pay for a wheel? Imagine if everyone alive contributed to the decendants of the guy who first invented the wheel!

You seem to be forgetting the part where patents are secured "for a limited time". I suspect that the wheel has been around long enough for the patent to have expired.

I think that the real problme with patents is not that they are granted for inane things (although that is a problem), but that govern independent discoveries that just happen to be similar. It's on ething to shamelessly rip off an inventor. It's something else to do a bunch of work to invent something, only to find that some other guy got there 3 days before you, and so now your work is worthless since they own the rights to the idea. That scenario strikes me as wrong.

Prior Art

[ThisIsFred]

Sorry, just can't stay away from this article. I also believe that there is prior art for the patent in question. This company produced "infringing" products prior to the patent being issued in 1996, and IIRC even prior to the 1993 submission of the patent. I can't find anything on the web, but I'm going to dig up some old copies of my computer rags to see if I can find the first "accelerator" board for the Amiga, which I'm fairly certain was sold prior to 1990 (and definitely prior to 1993).

Can anyone else back me up on this?

INSIGHTFUL? HOW ABOUT OFF TOPIC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod this whole thread off-topic.

Or at least the posters could add the last paragraph that ties their predudices back into the topic.

And someone needs to M2 the moderators that missed this!

They'll probably lose

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology that they're saying is 'theirs' is not an original one, infact its pretty obvious. Rather than grunt through it, I imagine Intel doing a simple study that verifies that the technology is obvious and that the patent is invalid.

Large companies REQUIRE ownership.

[lcsjk]

All the large companies I have worked with over the last 30 years require that individuals transfer patent rights to the company as a condition of employment. Even the university here is considering the same. What they don't realize is that the requirement stifles patent applications.

Re:Large companies REQUIRE ownership.

[wfberg]

All the large companies I have worked with over the last 30 years require that individuals transfer patent rights to the company as a condition of employment. Even the university here is considering the same. What they don't realize is that the requirement stifles patent applications.

Some corporations give their employees a bonus for each patent issued in their name. IIRC Philips gives their employees $100. Though possibly an additional silver dollar might be involved. Yay.

Re:Large companies REQUIRE ownership.

[lcsjk]

AT NCR I told the patent group representative that I would not spend 20-40 hours of time writing up and reviewing patent write-ups for $100. I don't know if it was just me, but soon the total went to about $500, split into submittal, company approval, submittal to US Patent dept and Patent issuance. I only had one before the big layoff after AT&T bought the company.

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Some mod is really lacking in a sense of humor... :/

New Technology and Prior Art

[Azure Khan]

Now I have a question:

Does the Patent Office have a process for filing an invention as Prior Art, so that a company that invents something and wishes it to be public domain can prevent it from being taken and patented by someone else? It seems to me that if a company wished to create things so it could allow them to benefit society as a whole, there would have to be some way to protect that item from patent without having to patent it yourself.

Re:New Technology and Prior Art

[tiger99]

In most countries, you just publish the invention, and no-one else can then ever patent it, including yourself after a short time. Copyright issues can also be dealt with at the same time, you could put it under GPL or Creative Commons, or some other licence. In fact, the licence you use could explicitly disallow patenting, if you wanted to be sure, and I think that would have effect in the US, where publication alone does not.

In fact the US system is very wrong, as has been said on /. before, because someone else can come along some time later and patent your invention, which would not be acceptable anywhere else.

The law is not an absolute

[TheHonestTruth]

All the things you harp about are the product of the legislature, who, though mainly lawyers, are also a product of public opinion (even if that opinion is lobbyists).

"Not all lawyers are bad" - ... Maybe not, but I think the majority are.

What a fucking crock. The majority? What 80% of the people that decide to into law are bad people? Or do you really mean the 51% the term "majority" allows you. I hate meter-maids because of their profession, but I can't believe the majority, or even a significant portion of the minority, are bad people. They are people earning a living at something they, hopefully, enjoy that has an unpopular place in society's eyes. You have to be a Darl McBride in my book to be a bad person, and those are fairly rare.

-truth

Re:The law is not an absolute

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

I have not done a statistically valid study of the "badness" (??) of lawyers. My opinion is based on personal experience (which is not terrible), the experience of friends (which IS terrible in a some cases), the media coverage of the use of lawyers by clients (e.g. RIAA), the high cost of defending oneself in court, etc.
One example of a friend's experience: Book author (friend) obtained artist's written permission to use a piece of (computer) artwork. Artist had signed over ownership of artwork to corporation (before giving permission to author to use artwork and without informing said author). Corporation sues artist, author and publisher. Author's lawyer says that in court, author would win. The court is 1500 miles away and the cost of defense should be less than $20,000 (hopefully). The author ends up filing for bankruptcy since potential legal costs are too great.
Second example (same friend). Publisher and sueing corporation work out a deal. Author goes to local lawyer to get bankruptcy dismissed. Time goes on without any word from lawyer. Months later, it turns out that local lawyer moved to a different city, did not do promised work and did not inform client. Local legal society refuses to do anything about lawyer.

You do point out that the terms are vague (e.g. a "bad person" or a "bad profession") and I agree. I do not think most lawyers are bad people (although some are); some of them are good friends. However, there are serious inequaties in our legal system and I see little evidence that lawyers or judges are trying to reform things. Certainly legislatures should be blamed. However, lawyers (e.g. the Association of Trial Lawyers) have a great deal of political influence and do not seem to be using it to make the (civil) legal system affortable to the public.

Re:The law is not an absolute

[digitaleus]

Most lawyers are alright people.

The problem is that most highly successful lawyers are bad, because they're the ones who push for these bullshit infringement claims / lawsuits / etc.

And since the highly successful lawyers are the ones that take on the newsworthy cases, it seems like they're all arseholes.

Re:The law is not an absolute

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"All the things you harp about are the product of the legislature, who, though mainly lawyers, are also a product of public opinion (even if that opinion is lobbyists)."
After some thought, I have difficulty seeing how this statement differs from a statement that a "DA" in an evil regeme (e.g. Nazi) might make. The notion of civil disobedience is based on the idea that laws can be unjust and some laws should not be supported by the public. It seems to me that unfair, unjust or "illegal" laws (from England) had something to do with the American revolution. While I believe that many, perhaps most, DAs do not attempt to enforce unjust laws, there are certainly many minority individuals with longer prison sentences than majority individuals because of unjust drug laws; with respect to these drug laws, many DAs obviously do not seem to mind using unjust laws.

Our legal system includes the possibility that the public can change unjust laws (by electing "better" representatives who change such laws). At best, however, this process takes a great deal of time. DAs (and rich corporations) have a huge advantage over ordinary citizens in our legal system. While corporations are heartless evil empires :-) DAs are individuals who (may) have a moral sense and should be responsible for their decisions. When a DA says (in public) "I did not know if it was a strong case but the jury found it convincing", I think there is a problem. How many rape cases have been overturned on the basis of DNA evidence? (I'll bet DAs hate being "shown up".) How many rape cases might be overturned if the DNA evidence had not been lost? (I think rape is a horrible crime but it is one of the few where objective evidence can be used. How many innocent people are in jail for other crimes because such objective evidence does not exist?)

I happen to think that the abuse by the military in Iraq reflects a part of human nature. When people are placed in superior positions (with respect to power), it is very tempting to abuse that power. Classical studies from Stanford (and elsewhere) many years ago demonstrated this fact. DAs usually stand in such superior positions (e.g. socal (police) support, taxpayers purse, use of the media). I think it could be easy for some DAs to consider themselves morally superior and to consider each "win" in court as vindication of their views (and superiority). While it is known that police and the military are attractive to people who want to be in superior power positions (bullies), I hope DAs are not generally like this.

Re:The law is not an absolute

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"What a fucking crock. The majority?"
Even though most people will not read this post, I think it is important to add one more comment. Lawyers are represented by national groups such as the American Bar Association (ABA). The conduct and rules of groups like the ABA do reflect on the character of lawyers. It was therefore interesting to see an editorial in Saturday's New York Times which discusses the proposed "revisions to the American Bar Association's code of judicial conduct". To guote a part of this editorial,
"The bar panel's newly unveiled proposals for revamping the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would actually weaken the core provision that requires judges to avoid not just actual impropriety in all their activities, but also the appearance of impropriety."
Related articles are here and here.

I am going to `break the rules' and comment on the noderation of my first post in this thread. I get mod points quite often (as do most of us, I suspect); I do not know if professors get more or fewer than other people. When I have mod points, I look at articles which have been modded down to see if this was deserved (and as the guidelines request, I look at comments modded -1 and higher). On some occasions, I notice a later post which says "mod parent up" or "mod parent down" AND includes good reasons for this request; I have thought about the arguments and, in some cases, modded the parent up or down. If moderators really think my first post was offtopic, uninteresting and inappropriate, then I request that you mod it down to -1.

This method is older than computers.

[CedgeS]

My grandfather invented the low-frequency sine function generator about 40~50 years ago, and sold it to HP. It worked in part because he was able to isolate a frequency standard from its output using an amplifier, which is now a fairly ubiquitous design. Tricks involving subdividing a signal to make it a higher frequency, or lowering the frequency by abandoning some portion of the signals are not only obvious and well known to anyone who has taken a physics instrumentation lab, but where well understood at that time too. This is not only unoriginal, it is so common that you could find prior art in a lower division college textbook.

Re:This method is older than computers.

[tiger99]

Yes, very old and well-known technique, but I think this patent is based on putting the two frequencies to specific use in the logic. Otherwise it would apply to every frequency synthesizer, and this fraudster would be taking on much of the world, not just Intel. HP would of course be a prime target, they still make frequency synthesizers.

But there is going to be lots of prior art anyway, no need to sell Intel shares over this.....

I usually use AMD, no doubt they will be the next target.

This suit is fantastic news

[DABANSHEE]

Only via mega victims/abuse will there be patent law reform.

It was a real pity BT didn't succeed with it's hyperlink patent suit - the mega-economies would've reformed their patent laws quick smart if BT had succeeded.

Really the more outrageous the suit & the bigger the defendents, the better off we all are in the long run.

Fact is law reform virtually only occures if the big end of town are victims of bad laws.

Patents vs profit?

[phorm]

I think that what we need is a legal barrier against patents against profitable enterprise. Pentium chips have been around awhile, and it's not like they were part of a cloak and dagger operation.

Sure, if a company X uses my technology I should be able to put forth an initial lawsuit to either block the usage or seek royalties. What I should not be able to do, is hold my patent cards close to my hand whilst waiting for anothers' product to make a big profit, then try to capitalize on their profit by sueing with my patent.

With the volume of existing patents finding an existing infringement for a large project is like finding a needle in a haystack. Moreover, by the patent holder not coming forth much earlier, the supposedly 'infringing' company has been robbed of their right to seek non-infringing technology as an alternate.

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

The guests are an act of his. But he goes into these long monolouges on subjects such as the war on terror and sounds just like a republican. Is that an act? I love his "guest's" and the people who call in thinking they are real people. But when he goes off with one of his monolouges I have to turn off the radio. If those are just an act, it isn't keeping me listening.

Re:Patents are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, someone posts a link to a valid academic study on patents and innovation and they get modded as a troll by /. moderators.

(says something about the actual relevance of the tripe being promoted on this website as "socially invaluable insight").

Bafoonary lives on, long live Slashdot!!!!!

Re:Had to say it!

[CarrionBird]

Wow, two people actually took the time and points to mod my little post as overrated! (at 1)

Do I get a medal now?

The solution to the current patent nightmare

[frinkster]

A simple two-pronged solution exists, and in reality should be supported by the big players in the industry.

Keep in mind that patents are government-sanctioned monopolies given in return for the advancement of the arts and sciences.

1) Any idea which is implemented by anyone else before
A) You implement it, or
B) It is published/awarded a patent
is not patentable. Obviously, it is not novel and/or you are not the one advancing the arts and sciences. You don't deserve a patent.

2) In order to enforce a patent, you must be using it. You are not advancing the arts and sciences by sitting on a patent, why should you be able to prevent someone else from using it (or extort money from them)?

Amazingly, more than a century ago the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion striking down the current use of patents by many in the technology field.

Justice Bradley in Atlantic Works v. Brady (1882)

It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.

Re:The solution to the current patent nightmare

[tiger99]

So the judge anticipated Bill Gates in 1882! The legal system was obviously in good order in those days.

Re:The solution to the current patent nightmare

[ChrisMaple]

In order to enforce a patent, you must be using it.

This would prevent the creation of patent pool companies such as Hazeltine. The idea here is that a bunch of companies all have patents in a field, and all the patents are necessary to the creation of a good product. The patents are assigned to the pool company (which doesn't necessarily use the patents), and the pool company licences the patents to all comers, possibly with discounts to those who originated the patents.

Where is the inventive step?

[tiger99]

IANAL, but I did think that a patent had to contain some kind of inventive step. This one does not, it is well-established engineering, with nothing new at all. It was being done well before 1996. I think there must be lots of prior art, no doubt the resources of Intel will be able to find plenty.

They have worded the patent very badly, so that it clearly applies only to a plug-in accelerator. Intel don't make these! Also, it looks to me as if it is easily worked around by soldering the processor in, instead of using a socket, and in any case the replacement processor seems to have to be part of an "accelerator board", like those useful things (Evergreen?) that had a K6/II-350 on board and would go into a P100/P133 socket. It does not seem to cover the case where there is one design of motherboard, and one processor, not on its own board.

This sort of nuisance show why there is all the more reason for urgently reforming the USPTO, which I hope Dubya's elected successor will do as a matter of urgency. This sort of stupid and vexatious claim is becoming far too common. No simple arrangement of a small number of commonplace hardware building blocks should be capable of being patented, there is inevitably prior art, even if it is hard to find, because most things are never published.

Just remembered, did the old Intel Multibus not do something like this, there was the capability for multiprocessing, and they could run at different speeds than the main bus, so of course does VME, and there is nothing to say that you can't dervive all the clocks of all the diverse processors from the VME Bus Clock.

I tend not to like large corporations, especially the greedy sort (Intel is nowhere near as bad as the Criminal Monopoly of course), but Intel deserve to win this one, and I hope it happens quickly, to deter others. Sadly, all of Intel's customers will end up paying, one way or the other, but somehow I doubt that the legal bill will be very big.

Re:Where is the inventive step?

[servoled]

The 1996 date doesn't matter as far as prior art is concerned. The date to beat is October 1, 1993, or possibly March, 1993 for some of the stuff (continuatin in part application).

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have two news-flashes for you: Phil Hendrie is a self-admitted SOCIALIST"

Holy shit! Not a socialist of all things.

YARRRRH

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Metal Slavery!!

Welcome to my HEAVY METAL DUNGEON

omg. rox.

Hence the WTO

[Vthornheart]

See, that's exactly why the U.S. is such a big backer of the World Trade Organization. Quite frankly, Globalization is really just a shallow attempt to retain the global dominating power of the United States by imposing our regulations on others, such as Patents for example.

One of the big things that is being pushed by the WTO is global acknowledgement of patents. You can guess who that'll benefit, and who that'll screw over.

In other news...

[Bozdune]

...All Computers Inc. patents "electron."

These things have to be squashed. We must all work together. This is ridiculous.

This is so obvious

[deck]

I think one problem with the USPTO is that they have started to patent the obvious. From other information given on this and other websites, about all the USPTO does is a patent search. As one skilled in the art (of electronics), this is such an obvious solution of synchronizing clocks that it should not have been patented.

$500 million

[_pi-away]

All Computers is asking for the tidy sum of $500 million USD.

. . . but we'll settle out of court right now for 50 bucks.

Pattent Office ia nor filled with techies

[Lewis Daggart]

Through out this topic I see people asking how the heck you can patent an idea this generic.

The answer's simple. You take this to the pattent office, you show it to the guys there and, seeing as how they know NOTHING about computers, they think it looks unique and they give you a patent.

The patent is useless though because, I'm certain Intel will be able to prove prior art.

What I want to know is, is there any rule about how soon you need to act to preserve your patent before it becomes void? I mean, anything to make their 11 year wait to file suit legally inexcusable?

Heh, Who is John Galt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Been suggested before....

I'm going to pass on this one.

[Sj0]

I don't think I can really make a judgement on whether this is ok or not, not being a processor designer and all. I think I'll leave this one up to the courts and save my outrage for when I'm grumpy about something completely different. :)

Don't know about All Computers

[iminplaya]

but mine is only asking for $699 USD.

Huh?

[blair1q]

Since when does Intel sell interposer boards?

Does this guy claim he invented common denominators? PLL synchrony? Frivolity?

I bet he gets $2 million to go away.

8 years on...

[spir0]

the patent was granted in 96. It's taken All Computers own lawyers years just to make heads or tails of the claim. Then once they did understand it, they had to withstand several years of brainwashing to wipe their heads of everything that would qualify as prior art.

Now they're ready.

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

So the education system in America is in deep shit.

At one time they did

[Glasswire]

Well. since lots of Intel processors
(everything before 386s) had primary clocks much less than 33MHz. Early 8088 (original IBM PC gen) systems DID have a clock of 4MHZ. I seem to recall that, in that ancient era, All Computers actually marked an upgrade board that used an 8MHz (double clocked) processor upgrade board. I think I actually installed one or two back then. If this seems like a small perf gain, look at it as about a 100% improvement in perf.

Prior Art: You're both infringing!

[Anonymous Coward]

United States Patent 5,077,686
Rubinstein December 31, 1991

Clock generator for a computer system

Abstract
A clock frequency multiplication circuit. A circuit is described for receiving a clock signal of a first frequency X and multiplying the frequency of the signal by a multiple N to produce a signal of frequency N times X. The circuit is particularly useful in, for example, computer systems in which it is desired to upgrade certain components such as a processor to operate at an increased clock speed without modifying the clock speed of the system clock and where it is further desired to provide synchronization between the system clock and the processor clock.

Inventors: Rubinstein; Jon (Palo Alto, CA)
Assignee: Stardent Computer (Newton, MA)
Appl. No.: 472749
Filed: January 31, 1990

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a clock generation circuit for a computer system. Specifically, the clock generation circuit accepts as an input a clock signal of a first frequency X (the system clock) and provides as an output a clock signal of a second frequency N time X. This circuit has particular application in, for example, a computer system having a system clock speed of X and in which the system clock is distributed to a plurality of components. In such a computer system it may be desirable to replace one of such plurality of components with a components operating at a higher clock speed. For example, a processor operating at 32 Mhz may be replaced by a processor operating at 64 Mhz.

In such a case it is desirable to provide the new processor operating at 64 Mhz with a 64 Mhz clock signal synchronized with the system clock. The circuit of the present invention provides such a clock signal.

Filing suit != winning

[tcgroat]

Relax, the suit has only been filed. There is no judgement, and if the case actually goes to trial the resolution will be a long time coming. There's a good chance this will be settled out of court after Intel files their response and counter-claims, for far less than $500 million.

I notice that patent 5,506,981 refers to "accelerator boards" in the claims. A well-prepared patent has claims worded as broadly as possible, so the repeated use of "accelerator boards" in the claims suggests that the claims had to be limited in scope. Often, that's because prior art exists outside those particular claims. All Computers will have to convince the court that a Pentium CPU is the same (under patent law) as a "system board" combined with an "accelerator board", and that their patent filing date (1 Oct 1993) was before Intel's public release of infringing Pentium CPUs.

IANAL. I only second-guess them on Slashdot.

Accelerator board and Clock multiplier?

[dszd0g]

I read over the patent, but I am not a lawyer. It is difficult to read over patents as an engineer. It looks like the specific claim is for a specific implementation of an accelerator board. I seriously doubt Intel is using that identical implementation.

The more general claims in the patent seems to be for a clock multiplier. There is plenty of prior art there, and if that is where they are claiming Intel is infringing then they hopefully lose the case and those general claims in there patent may be thrown out. They may still be left with the specific claims in the patent, but that will give them less room to file infringement cases in the future.

Re:Things

[canavan]

History of Computing Hardware mentions the Zuse Z3, which was binary, program controlled and despite the fact that it didn't implement conditional branches, turing complete. The wikipedia articles on Colossus don't mention when that was built, so I guess that was after the Z3 in 1941. I wouldn't count ENIAC, since it was decimal instead of binary, and had to be rewired to run a different program.

Intel Keychains!

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related note, while checking out Ebay I spotted two Intel keychains, here is a link to one of them.. Just thought someone here might be interested:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ca te gory=3628&item=2246413057&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[(54)T-Dub]

According to your flawed stastics they may be more educated, but according to my flawed stastics they have an average lower IQ