Slashdot Mirror


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."

54 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Another Lawyer money maker by stecoop · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Another Lawyer money maker by julesh · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Another Lawyer money maker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Another Lawyer money maker by pe1chl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:Another Lawyer money maker by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

  2. A legal section on /. by herrison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need one. Please!

    --
    You know what I miss? Leeches.
  3. Patents out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Patents out of hand by Sc00ter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  4. Overdrive by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:Overdrive by stevew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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..)

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
  5. One day nothing will be able to be done by machine+of+god · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because someone will own a piece of every idea.

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

    1. Re:One day nothing will be able to be done by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:One day nothing will be able to be done by picz · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

      --
      ------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
    3. Re:One day nothing will be able to be done by dmayle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!

    4. Re:One day nothing will be able to be done by PastaLover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:One day nothing will be able to be done by Mr.+X · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  6. Is it really worth it to them? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Is it really worth it to them? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Is it really worth it to them? by little1973 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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'.

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
  7. Holy extortion, batperson! by Willeh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
  8. This might be good by Syberghost · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  9. In Related News...... by write_with_numbers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
    1. Re:In Related News...... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
  10. Europe by sleepnmojo · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  11. Coming on the heels of Integraph by sacremon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
  12. The American Dream (TM) by JohnCC · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:The American Dream (TM) by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  13. Legal Section on /. by jobsagoodun · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its called Groklaw!

  14. Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA by trippin_efnet · · Score: 3, Funny
    "I'm sick of ... whiny people..."

    are you sick of irony too?
    ...
  15. Re:Enough's enough already by maximino · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  16. I agree by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  17. After a quick read by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    --
    Music is everybody's possession.
    It's only publishers who think that people own it.
    Fuck Beta
    ~John Lenno
  18. Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA by DrMrLordX · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  19. Re:Lets add this up by eXtro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  20. Bell Labs by SillySnake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ;-)

    1. Re:Bell Labs by e1618978 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bipolar Junction Transistor?

    2. Re:Bell Labs by GileadGreene · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  21. Patent text by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2
    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...
  22. It's NOT called Groklaw by mhesseltine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
  23. Re:And where were you when this all happened? by sylvester · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  24. Violation of some claims is sufficient... by blorg · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...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)].
    1. Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient... by pe1chl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >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...

    2. Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient... by IPGrover · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  25. Software Patents in Europe by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Say no to software patents.
  26. Patent Pending by Bruha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  27. Not Even Close!! by WildThing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?!?

  28. Where do these guys buy pants? by Raven42rac · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

    --
    I hate sigs.
  29. Re:Patents are design a pro-big business measure by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  30. I just cant wait by Coupier · · Score: 2, Funny

    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..."

  31. Wow! by ThisIsFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
  32. Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  33. New Technology and Prior Art by Azure+Khan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --

    --- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
  34. This suit is fantastic news by DABANSHEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  35. Hence the WTO by Vthornheart · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart