HP Pays Intergraph $141m to Settle Patent Dispute

Demand Tort Reform... by Ogman · 2005-01-27 01:02 · Score: 0, Troll

Stop frivolous corporate lawsuits over patents and alleged "intellectual property."

--
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!

Re:Demand Tort Reform... by essreenim · 2005-01-27 01:07 · Score: 1, Funny

New M.C Hammer lyrics:
"We got to pray to avoid patents today"... "we got to pray, prayyyyyy." "We got to PRAY, prayyyyyy."
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by R.D.Olivaw · 2005-01-27 01:13 · Score: 1, Funny

or else we'll have to pay,paaaaaaaaaaaaay
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by sangreal66 · 2005-01-27 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is it frivolous? Are we supposed to be against mechanical patents now too?
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We"??? speak for yourself. This is a discussion forum. Anyway.

For what it's worth, as a trained mechanical engineer, yes, I for one AM against ALL patents. NO-ONE should have the right to stop you altering your own physical property, and selling it on in altered form, if you want to. If you want to "reward invention", then give inventors grants, don't restrict everyone else with patent monopolies just to please the few!
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by R.Caley · 2005-01-27 02:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

I can see one case where patents are perhaps justified in the 21st century, that is where we, through our agent the state, substantially increases the costs and risks of work in some area, and patents can offset that.
The obvious candidate is pharmaceuticals, where (quite reasonably) we impose a massive regulatory load and delay development for years, and so make it much harder for someone to exploit a discovery or invention before it just becomes common currency.
Obviously IT has no such problem.
At the very least I think that the protection against independent reinvention should be reduced to some small, standard licencing fee. That would remove the more or less unbounded risk we are all taking every day now from the fact that some obscure and possibly insane patent might, properly interpreted, give someone else ownership of our work. That would seem to be a small, bounded change to the law which could be done quickly and nail 90% of the acute problem.

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Rakishi · 2005-01-27 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Research costs money, in some cases lot's of money. Patents guarantee that this money can be regained over time as part of the product cost. This prevents a competitor from directly copying your idea and selling it for less (they didn't have R&D costs).

In other words, without patents companies have a lot less incentive to do any sort of expensive specific research since they have little chance of making money on it.

Individual inventors would also be screwed since they also have little chance of making money of their inventions: a larger company with more money will simply copy it and sell it for less. Or maybe one of the inventor's investors or prospective investors will do it before the product is even in production.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:10 · Score: 0

Yet you can take any kind of crap, label it "herbal" or "homeopathic" and sell it directly to gullible consumers. The huge cost is only if you want it labeled as a "drug".
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Ogman · 2005-01-27 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

All I know is everytime you look around some company is suing some other company for some violation of ip or patent. Most of these suits seem to be aimed at stiffling innovation by competing companies and controlling progress until the original company is convinced it has milked the patent or ip for every single dollar the marketing department can acquire. Then, of course we see the company that has produced NOTHING during it's entire existence, save one thought scrawled on a napkin, and it thinks it should get millions (or billions) from companies that actually DID something with the same thought.
Meanwhile, who do you think is paying for all of these lawyers? Do you think the CEO takes a pay cut to pay for the lawsuits? I think the cost gets passed on to the consumer. So, why is it that I should be in favor of stopping frivolous personal lawsuits and not equally frivolous and costly corporate suits?

--
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by AviLazar · 2005-01-27 02:14 · Score: 1

For what it's worth you have zero concept of business then.

"oh lets change the color of this widget." after color change "Great, now that we spent $5 changing the color, we can sell this product at half the cost of the company that spent millions researching it....oh goody"

And if you don't think that could/would happen without patents, then you are sadly mistaken.

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Steeltoe · 2005-01-27 02:28 · Score: 2

"oh lets change the color of this widget." after color change "Great, now that we spent $5 changing the color, we can sell this product at half the cost of the company that spent millions researching it....oh goody"

And if you don't think that could/would happen without patents, then you are sadly mistaken.

It's called competition.

What often happens is this:
Company A patents all their ideas and inventions, down to the most absurd.

Company B develops some similar technology with their own independent research (who can understand the text on patent-claims, or have the time to read the millions of bogus and unuseful claims? The directory of patents is only useful to lawyers.)

Company B becomes successful for having a superior product.

Company A sues company B for patent-infringement some years later. Company A is usually in a downturn at this point, with no good and proven products.

How are patents productive to society? Company A would develop the technology some time or later, it's usually incremental changes in existing technology which are mostly patent-free and public domain.

Software patents and litigations will kill an industry based on building and sharing on ideas. Where would programming languages be, or anything in this society, if everything was to be patented. Progress would slow down.

And the small guy who wants to produce products are squeezed out, because lawyers are expensive.

Compare this with that people will get ideas all the time, usually at different parts of the world at the same time. Patents will not make these ideas pop up any faster, only raise the barrier to implement these ideas.

Big companies never produce any ideas by themselves..

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by AviLazar · 2005-01-27 02:34 · Score: 1

Under your model, of no patents, what are you going to do to protect a company that spends millions of dollars and other resources (time) from the company that just waits to copy the idea?

Big companies never produce any ideas by themselves..

Come on dude, that's an idiotic (naive at best) statement. Big companies have many people working for them who produce many ideas.
,
The only part of your statement that I can agree with is where it becomes absurd when a company patents the most inane thing (especially if it has prior art).

Again, how do you propose to protect a companies investment (under a no patent system). If you rely on the goodwill of the people "well I will pay $100 because this company originated the product, instead of $50 to the other guys who copied it" then you are very naive.

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by R.Caley · 2005-01-27 02:35 · Score: 1

Yet you can take any kind of crap, label it "herbal" or "homeopathic" and sell it directly to gullible consumers.
Well, I can't really see the harm. If it's clearly labeled as, at best, worthless then who can complain when it makes their hair fall out and doesn't cure their cancer?
Of course, we could demand that any claims made for effectiveness be backed up by proper evidence from controlled tests. It would be worth putting the idea forward just to see the medical professions and drug companies shitting themselves:-).

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:44 · Score: 0

Yes. At least we should be against a bad patent system.

The patentsystem should be reformed so that the life of a patent is drastically shortened, and it should be legal/allowed to implement idéas in patents in not-for-profit products. For example, it should be legal to manufacture medicine (aids, etc) without paying patent-fees, and ordinary persons should never ever be possible to sue for patent infringement (for example, if you assemble computers for your family using intel processors, is it reasonable that you can get sued the same way as HP / gateway / dell, etc)? Patents should only protect companies from other companies using their ideas for profit, but if someone descides to implement the idea on a not-for-profit basis (eg. open source, medicine, etc) it should be allowed and risk-free.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 02:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Under your model, of no patents, what are you going to do to protect a company that spends millions of dollars and other resources (time) from the company that just waits to copy the idea?

My first engineering job was at the research laboratory of SKF, so I know a thing or two about patents as they apply to mechanical engineering. Even then (this was in 1993) SKF was largely doing away with their patent section, on the grounds that you didn't actually patent what you were researching any longer, as that would just tell your competition what you were up to. This enables said competiton to lay a 'patent minefield' i.e. to get a few quick patents in to block your progress, while they gear up their own research to be able to follow (or even beat) you to market.

Hence the battle cry was: "Short time to market". Not patents. With a short time to market you'll make your investement back before your competition is out of the starting blocks. And whey they get going, you've already run ahead, refining your offer, and (more importantly) got a grip (not to say lock) on the market. It's much more difficult to switch supplier once you've got going, than it is to go with the competition in the first place.

I saw this happening before my very eyes as I was there. That was the period where SKF just made their CARB rolling bearing public after much secrecy. The CARB idea was not encumbered with any patents, in that case as the idea was from the thirties and the patents had already expired before the means of producing them were available. But the pundits said that it was still doubtful if they would have spent much effort in that area even if it hadn't.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by AviLazar · 2005-01-27 03:01 · Score: 1

This assumes while in the patent process you cannot release your product to the market. Remember you can label your product as "patent pending" and release it to the market.

The patent process is flawed, but from my understanding, if you submit your patent first you get it looked at first. Plus it is dated. So if you submit your patent - it will be kind of hard for your competitors to insert another patent that copies some of your base ideas and claim it as their own (unless they have time machines).

Your idea also assumes that a company can get an ROI prior to the other guy releasing a clone of your product. This simply does not always happen; especially with leaks of details about the product.

At least with a patent, you can sue the company if they try and steal your product idea.

So again, how do you protect a companies ROI if they do not have a patent?

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:16 · Score: 0

The ultimate oxymoron - Parent modded "Troll" by a lawyer!
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 03:23 · Score: 1

This assumes while in the patent process you cannot release your product to the market. Remember you can label your product as "patent pending" and release it to the market. So again, how do you protect a companies ROI if they do not have a patent?

Sure you can, but with todays fierce financial competition you'd better make your money back fast or you wont have investors. Take the SKF example. The company wanted a 22% ROI and their money back within two (count them: two) years. Otherwise the product wasn't deemed viable. So it's not a question of the state protecting SKF, they themselves don't want that kind of protection as that doesn't make financial sense.

The problem here I think is that there are patents and there are patents. Companies try to provide solutions to customers problems (i.e. fill a need). There are typically many ways of filling that need. The more broad and far reaching your patent is, the more difficult it is to make it stick (as there's likely to be more prior art). Thus, the only patents that are going to cost money to a large corporation are the ones that can be designed around (fairly easily). The overbroad ones can be fought in court successfully (and cheaply, $1-$2 million is often quoted), and hence don't enter into the equation.

Take one example from my own industry. Nokia in the early nineties patented the way of reducing stand by power consumption in mobile phone by reducing the cpu frequency. That stuck (as it was narrow application to the mobile phone problem). As such it gave Nokia a short lived advantage in stand by time, over the rest of the market. The competition scrambled to meet the same targets, in Ericsson's case by researching battery technology. It only took a year or so before they were up to the same stand by time as the current Nokia phones, and hence Nokia's invention (I use that loosely) had been neutralised. When the patent expired however, Nokia found themselves distanced by the competition, as they hadn't researched battery technology and hence when the competition could start to lower their clock frequency (from a position of strength), they had substantially better stand by times. It was Nokia's turn to scramble.

So, in general, patent or no patent, your competition will have closed the gap in two years at the latest. Hence SKF:s stance that if you haven't made back your money in two years, you're in trouble. No need for a 16-20 year patent in that case, the economy has changed since these figures were set down.

So, releasing a clone takes time and other business pressures makes that time the golden hour in which to make back your money. If you cannot, you're not going to get funding, as there are other investements that will have a better payoff.

I would say that that is true even in the pharmaceutical industry. The research money spent on Losec was made back in an instant, and the rest of the patent time is just gravy. Not pure gravy however, as the competition saw that there was money to be made here and came up with alternatives.

No, the problem with the pharmaceutical industry isn't the patent situation. It's the fact that the cost-benefit to society is different from the cost-benefit to the companies, and hence competitive capitalism (or whatever you'd call it) isn't a good model for the research into potentially useful pharmaceutical substances. Compare, it's in societies best interest to find a cure rather than a treatment (given that the cost benefit is in it, which it often is), but it's in the best interest of the industry to find a treatement, not a cure. Compare Losec, which is a treatment, not a cure.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by 9Nails · 2005-01-27 03:28 · Score: 1

I hate this level of thinking. To think that you are the only person with an idea, and that no other engineer can comprehend caching inside a processor is insanity. And then to paten this idea... It's just backwards from what I consider productive thinking, and only serves to keep lawyers employed.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Rakishi · 2005-01-27 03:35 · Score: 1

This is not caching but a specific method or something along those lines. And you do know that a patent does not say "you can't use this invention for yourself" but rather "ask us, and potentially pay us, if you want to use this invention yourself".

Trivial and obvious things should not be patentable.
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by essreenim · 2005-01-27 04:11 · Score: 1

Hey, how come I got modded -1 ? /. mod monkeys strike again. Soon they will cleanse the site of fun. Maybe they are racist against M.C. Excuse me for having a personality you insesitive clods. I'll just get back to the reality of mundane work. Why bother trying to make people happy. Nothing to see here, move along..
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by Jerry · 2005-01-27 04:32 · Score: 1

The only problem with your "companies have to recover costs of research" argument is that most research is funded by the NSF and NIH and those funds are payed for by John Q Taxpayer.

In many instances key knowledge breakthroughs are kept secret by the researcher after their discovery. The researcher then resigns their government job, takes the key knowledge with them, and creates a startup company to profit on that key knowledge, which they patent after having "discovered" it after their startup begins "researching". Combine that trick with the congressional law which gives rights for public research to private companies, and you hve the complete picture of the corporate research scam/welfare.

Most of the retail costs of high tech products comes from high profits which feed high salaries for the upper level management. Even stupid CEO who get fired after only 9 months on the job take $26M out the door with them. The Dick Lay's of the world just have to have 7 mansions, several jets, and dozens of condos around the planet, so they need those high salaries and retirement bonsus so they can afford to maintain those basic necessities.

--
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Re:Demand Tort Reform... by chucks86 · 2005-01-29 16:51 · Score: 1

I believe that one can patent an improvement of an existing product.

--
Help a poor college student. Send a couple cents via paypal to chucks86@gmail.com

Which Patent? by moshez · 2005-01-27 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does anyone know which patent it actually was, just so we can look at it and see how idiotic it is?

Re:Which Patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:09 · Score: 0

Yes. Please see my reply below.
Re:Which Patent? by AstroDrabb · 2005-01-27 08:39 · Score: 1

Does it really matter _what_ patent it was? This is a perfect example of the problems with "software" patents. This company didn't create one fricken thing, yet they got hundreds of millions from the big companies.
It was Intel and the other companies that actually made these technologies happen. Intel and the others are the ones that spent the tons of cash and man-hours to make all these "technologies" covered by these patents come to fruition. However, the sad US patent system allows some idiot who just sat in a chair and had and "idea" to hold the true innovators of our nation hostage for money.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:Which Patent? by pipingguy · 2005-01-27 11:35 · Score: 1

Oldish article about Intergraph and its Clipper chip

This was around the time I bought a math co-processor so I could run AutoCAD on a Microchannel 286.
Re:Which Patent? by Josepdin · 2005-01-28 07:31 · Score: 1

I suspect it would be one or more of these:
# U.S. Patent No. 4,860,192 entitled "Quadword Boundary Cache System"
Issued: 8/22/1989
# U.S. Patent No. 4,884,197 entitled "Method And Apparatus For Addressing A Cache Memory"
Issued: 11/28/1989
# U.S. Patent No. 4,899,275 entitled "Cache-MMU System"
Issued: 2/6/1990
# U.S. Patent No. 4,933,835 entitled "Apparatus For Maintaining Consistency Of A Cache Memory With A Primary Memory"
Issued: 6/12/1990
# U.S. Patent No. 5,091,846 entitled "Cache Providing Caching/Non-Caching Write-Through and Copyback Modes For Virtual Addresses And Including Bus Snooping To Maintain Coherency"
Issued: 2/25/1992

--
TV-MA - the Beginning: "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night?"

Small OEMs by iamthemoog · 2005-01-27 01:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm a small OEM and have shipped a few intel processor based machines... Am I liable to pay a fine too?

Not had the bill yet, if so....

--
No Norm, those are your safety glasses; I'll wear my own thanks...

Re:Small OEMs by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:38 · Score: 0

So are the going to sue IBM?

They sell machines based on the Pentium (at least until their PC division is transferred)
Re:Small OEMs by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:38 · Score: 0

It seems to me that if Intel and AMD have licenced the patent [properly] then users of their products should be covered. The auto industry patents all kinds of little stuff that goes on your car. They don't run around trying to collect from people who buy used cars. It seems like only the manufacturer should be stuck with the bill, otherwise it's like double dipping.
Re:Small OEMs by gowen · 2005-01-27 04:05 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm a small OEM and have shipped a few intel processor based machines
No. You should be protected by
section 2-312 of the Uniform Commerical Code.
Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like...
Thanks to an anonymous coward who pointed this out to me.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.

What is the legal basis for this? by nagora · 2005-01-27 01:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Did HP have anything to do with the design of the cache in the Pentium? If not, why are they paying anything? Surely it's up to Intel to pay royalties on patents they breached, not their customers. I particularly can't see any way Gateway could have been liable for this.

TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 01:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Did HP have anything to do with the design of the cache in the Pentium? If not, why are they paying anything? Surely it's up to Intel to pay royalties on patents they breached, not their customers. I particularly can't see any way Gateway could have been liable for this.

That's not how patents work I'm afraid. In the words of the USPTO:

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

Note the word use in the text above.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by nagora · 2005-01-27 01:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Note the word use in the text above.
But surely if the customer bought the product for resale in good faith the law can't be applied any more than I can be done for handling stolen goods which have somehow been sold through an legitimate retail outlet.
Intent to break the patent must be part of the legal requirement in any sane system...oh, I see
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:20 · Score: 0

It depends on how the manufacturers were using the Pentium. If the Pentium chip was sold as part of a system then the system's manufacturer is automatically first hand responsible for all consequences. This is the reason why companies have indemnity agreements with their suppliers. They can get at least part of the expenses back from the supplier in cases like this one.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by millwall · 2005-01-27 01:24 · Score: 1

"the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States

So if this is the case, why don't they sue PC World or the local PC dealer for distributing the machines with Intel processors?

Or while we are at it, why not sue the post office for delivering these machines. Hell, why not sue the oil companies for delivering petrol to the post vans delivering the intel processors.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by govtcheez · 2005-01-27 01:33 · Score: 1

Don't forget they can sue all of us for using them, as well.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Tim+C · 2005-01-27 02:02 · Score: 1

I very much doubt that you'd get very far at all trying to sue the petrol suppliers, but as I read the excerpt (IANAL, etc), yes you could sue PC World for selling them.

That's not to say you'd necessarily *win* the case, but I suspect you could argue that there was indeed a case to answer.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:23 · Score: 0

If HP didn't know then HP should go after intel for their loses. If they came after me I would go after intel because I certainly check all possible patents concerning the pentium processor!
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:24 · Score: 0

Fucking LAME.. By that wording, they could sue all of the end users too. Not that they're going to, because several million lawsuits for a possible few grand each aren't going to be very profitable.

However, that doesn't seem to discourage the RIAA...

Another patent article that goes to show you that patents are weapons in the corporate portfolio in this day and age.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by LWATCDR · 2005-01-27 02:25 · Score: 2

So if you ever sold a computer on ebay with a pentium you could bet hit?
This is just dumb. Sorry but yes I can Intel needing to pay and maybe AMD but no one else.
I wonder if they went after IBM?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Another patent article that goes to show you that patents are weapons in the corporate portfolio in this day and age.

Yes, I've written many posts here that drives home the point that patents today are there to exclude the small players from the market. The big guys have enough patents to achieve patent 'MAD - mutual assured destruction'. Obviously that didn't quite work here, which is a bit surprising. The problem is probably that intergraph doesn't actually do much, and hence cannot be scared away by a HP's patent portfolio.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 02:34 · Score: 1

So if this is the case, why don't they sue PC World or the local PC dealer for distributing the machines with Intel processors?

That's simply because the money isn't in it. Look at the article, they expected to pay $11 million in legal fees. As you don't have a 'loser pays' system (I know there are exceptions) you'll have to sue someone that can pay you enough in damages to make it worth your while.

So, the moral is; if you're doing open/free source development. Make sure you are poor, shouldn't be too hard :-), or have the backing of someone with a lot of patents themselves (IBM). Note however that IBM cannot scare away the 'IP only' companies that have sprung up in the past ten years or so. As they don't have anything to lose (they have no production of their own) they don't have competitors, and hence cannot be scared off by their patents.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 02:36 · Score: 1

Intent to break the patent must be part of the legal requirement in any sane system...oh, I see

See, we'll make a patent attorney of you yet. :-) (Not that I am).

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 02:38 · Score: 1

If HP didn't know then HP should go after intel for their loses. If they came after me I would go after intel because I certainly check all possible patents concerning the pentium processor!

The article says that Dell did exactly that. And that the settlement they got from Intel covered their settlement with Intergraph and then some.

I guess Intel can't risk pissing off Dell, as they could threaten to say "fuck it, we're going AMD from here on" HP, being more in bed with Intel, might have contracts and agreements (not to mention other business reasons) not to do that however.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:50 · Score: 0

So, by my reading, this does NOT mean the end-user is liable. I was not the importer or the OEM.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 03:06 · Score: 1

So, by my reading, this does NOT mean the end-user is liable. I was not the importer or the OEM.

Well, at least the text isn't clear about that. From my understanding, patents are really far reaching enough that, yes, in theory as a user of patented technology the holder can in fact sue you. Whether you had any hand in the manufacture or not.

This isn't often done however, as the money often isn't in it, and that some courts have taken the view that 'why aren't you going after someone higher in the food chain first?', c.f. brown bagging farmers (who seem to get nailed only if there's bad faith involved). Courts like intent (or unforgivable negligence) as a general idea, even if the law doesn't ask for it per se. It would be unreasonable to assume that you had either just by running a Pentium based computer.

That's not to say couldn't happen though.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by spleck · 2005-01-27 03:19 · Score: 1

HP, Dell, etc continued to sell PCs after Intergraph started their lawsuit which claimed patent infringement. They were still selling infringing PCs after Intergraph starting winning the lawsuits. Perhaps they should have sought a license...
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:37 · Score: 0

Then you sue whoever you bought it from for indemnity, big whoop.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 03:49 · Score: 1

So, by my reading, this does NOT mean the end-user is liable. I was not the importer or the OEM.

I'm replying again, as I've come up with a good model for thinking about why the end user should be liable.

The idea behind patents is to serve as a deterrent to try and make money off of your idea at the deteriment of you making money off of it. (And in return for that protection we expect you to tell us how the thing works so that we'll be able to duplicate it once the patent runs out).

Now, think that you've invented a new sort of water wheel that you intend to manufacture and sell to millers. However, reading the patent the local carpenter is hired by the local miller to build him a water wheel. Being dirt poor, the local carpenter accepts for a very reasonable fee. You can't compete with it. Every other miller does the same, as carpenters are easy to get a hold of. Now, in order for the patent to be a workable deterrent to this sort of thing happening you have to be able to go after the one actually making the money in this situation, i.e. the miller. You could sue carpenters till the cows come home and not make a dime, all the while the millers who haven't built anything, sold anything related to the patent, etc. etc, but still makes the money off of your invention, is untouchable.

Hence patents makes it possible to go after the (commercial) user of a patented device, as he might be the one making the buck.

It should of course be noted that I'm not that impressed with the current value of patents to society as, they haven't been overhauled for quite some time, and we often see abuse of the intent of the patent system these days, rather than 'use'.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by freemacmini · 2005-01-27 04:40 · Score: 1

The American legal system is a joke. Everybody knows that by now. This case, the SCO case, OJ, Condit, it goes on and on.

In what other country does every sentense also include rape? In what other country does a company like SCO go two years into a case without showing one single piece of evidence?

--
Get a free Mac Mini
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by nagora · 2005-01-27 04:42 · Score: 1

The carpenter thing is fair enough as the grounds for injunctions to prevent the continued selling of the invention, but it is not grounds for shifting the liability onto the carpenters (or HP, in this case). The damage was caused by bad faith (or ignorance) on Intel's part and they are the primary and active violaters of the patent. HP is a victim, unless they knew the patent was being violated, in that they are going to have their business disrupted when and if the product is pulled.
Any way you look at it, Intel, and Intel alone is the party actively breaking the (totally outdated) law. It is not a workable solution to say that every reseller must know every patent so that they can check each item they resell. It is a very slightly better position to say that a manufacturer should know the patents in their field.
The basic problem with the patent system is that cases are heard in front of judges (ex lawyers) and made by lawyers. They have a vested interest in broadening the scope of patent law by establishing unreasonable case law. The broader patents are, the more work there is for patent lawyers and judges. History has shown that judges and lawyers have been the strongest advocates of allowing stupid and over-reaching patents.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by bicho · 2005-01-27 04:51 · Score: 1

and we are still using Linux after all the sh?t SCO has said.
What's your point?

--

errera hunamum ets
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 05:01 · Score: 1

The carpenter thing is fair enough as the grounds for injunctions to prevent the continued selling of the invention, but it is not grounds for shifting the liability onto the carpenters (or HP, in this case). The damage was caused by bad faith (or ignorance) on Intel's part and they are the primary and active violaters of the patent. HP is a victim, unless they knew the patent was being violated, in that they are going to have their business disrupted when and if the product is pulled.

Well, if you're saying that if Intergraph was fair they would go after Intel, then I'd be inclined to agree. It's difficult to write a law that would make that happen though. The principle of shared (I don't know the legal term in English) responsibility is that any party to the agreement can be hit for the whole sum, they dont' have to share the responsibility equally. There's good reason for this as it might be difficult to ascertain who has made what money, some of the parties may disapear etc. I mean, in this case it's clear that HP et. al. has made a lot of money off of the affair.

Now of course, knowing this, corporations don't buy stuff from suppliers without clauses that indemify them from this sort of thing (for a fee naturally) and hence Dell etc. came out better than they were before (or at least didn't suffer much). It may not be in HP's best interest to squeese Intel however, even though the law certainly allows for that.

Now, personally, I think patents can have a net positive effect on society as a whole, but the system needs serious reform. The problem now is that they're too much like lottery tickets (i.e. they cost next to nothing, with potentially huge windfalls), rather than letters of insurance, which they were originally. One way of making the cost of patents more in line with their value would be to shorten the rediculously long patent times that we have today. I would even allow software patents if they were allowed to run, say a year and a half, instead of the sixteen to twenty years that we have today. With shorter run times the value of patents would decline, and hence we would see fewer applications for them, and less frivolous patents as well.

P.S. And of course, as you say, you won't see any pressure to reform from patent attorneys. They're not likely to derail their own gravy train, now are they?

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by nagora · 2005-01-27 05:30 · Score: 1

mean, in this case it's clear that HP et. al. has made a lot of money off of the affair.
Surely with a patent you charge a per item royalty, not a percentage of retail or whatever. In that case the issue is the number of units Intel made multiplied by the per item fee. It is in fact very easy to ascertain the amount owed. But perhaps I'm wrong about the fees, or maybe the system has changed since I looked at it years ago.
I think it has reached the point where the usefulness of patents in on a knife-edge. If they were scrapped there would be a huge potential for invention, but small inventors would have no hope. In the current system innovation is held back but small inventors have a little bit of protection. Which situation is better? Not much in it to me, but then I'm not an inventor. I am a programmer, though, and I can see only bad effects due to the nature of programming as a purely intellectual thing. It's one thing to patent a physical machine, patenting ideas is a foolish mistake.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by darkmeridian · 2005-01-27 07:22 · Score: 1

How will you ever prove intent? The requirement that I have knowingly violated the patent will be impossible to prove. I mean, I'll just never bother checking the patent filings and then I'll never know anything. I can have four hundred stolen toasters in my posession that I bought off a homeless man; how can you prove that I *knew* they were stolen?

If the users are smart, they would get indemnity from the suppliers that the products are not plagued with patent violations.

--
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 07:45 · Score: 0

That's not how patents work I'm afraid.

That may be so, but HP shouldn't have settled. They should have walked into court the day that Intel settled and paid up, and said "Intel paid the license fee for every one of these processors, we owe nothing." and walked out.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by nagora · 2005-01-27 11:12 · Score: 1

I can have four hundred stolen toasters in my posession that I bought off a homeless man; how can you prove that I *knew* they were stolen?
That's exactly why we have juries and the concept of "reasonable action", and "resonable doubt". And, we're not talking about a homeless person here: HP bought these processors off INTEL, for christ's sake! That's not the same thing at all.
It is impossible to apply the law as if it was a logically and mathematically perfect system, so we have humans to decide if in buying four hundred toasters off a homeless man it is reasonable to claim you had no reason to be concerned. I think I'd be dubious, just as I think I would need to see some documentation that proved that HP knew this patent was being violated, or at least worried about it.
If the users are smart, they would get indemnity from the suppliers that the products are not plagued with patent violations.
No, that is a stupid system. Users who have not been involved in a crime should not have to be indemnified against the actions of a supplier. Only a moron or a lawyer (same difference) would see that as a sensible way of doing things.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by spleck · 2005-01-27 13:31 · Score: 1

My point is that at this point it seems like Intergraph had a valid patent.

I'm surmising that Intergraph is continuing to sue resellers because they gave them a chance to legally use the patent and those resellers declined.

SCO =! Intergraph and is just full of shit.
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 21:53 · Score: 1

I think it has reached the point where the usefulness of patents in on a knife-edge. If they were scrapped there would be a huge potential for invention, but small inventors would have no hope.

Well, that could/should be true, but in practice I wonder if that's the case. I know of several small inventors who have been ripped of royally by larger corporations (see the on-going saga of Swedish inventor Håkan Lantz for example). Large corporations have time, money and lawyers; which smaller operators don't. So I'm not so sure. In the case of software I would say that patents are only useful for keeping the smaller operators off the market, whether the patents make sense in and of themselves or not.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by Kim0 · 2005-01-27 23:16 · Score: 1

So, If you have bought, use, or sell a device:

a) You are not allowed to reverse engineer it, and thus cannot find out if there is patented technology inside it.

b) If there is patented technolody inside it, you are guilty of patent infringement.

This sounds like a method for legal framing:
Just fool someone into using, selling, or importing a device, and then prosecute them for either a) or b).

Kim0
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-28 00:25 · Score: 1

This sounds like a method for legal framing: Just fool someone into using, selling, or importing a device, and then prosecute them for either a) or b).

Well, in theory; perhaps. However, there's a few good faith statues. If you're infringing someone's patent and you don't know about it (and it's reasonable you don't), then the injured party won't be awarded much in the way of damages for the stuff you sold before you were told that you were infringing the patent.

That's why every little bit of plastic you buy is stamped with 'patents no. x,y,z apply' or 'pats. pending' or words to that effect. If it does then an infringer can't claim he didn't know there were patents. The law doesn't require you to do a patent search. Which incidentally is why there is reason not to do one. If you don't then it's easier to claim ignorance.

Note that an exit strategy at the point where someone claims infringement is to redesign, or get out altoghether, so your entrapper might not end up with any money in the end.

--
Stefan Axelsson
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by EvilJoker · 2005-01-29 00:34 · Score: 1

umm, Dell is the one solidly in bed with Intel. Dell doesn't even OFFER a PC with anything except an Intel CPU, and I don't think it's available in the bigger systems either. This suggests that they are thoroughly in bed with Intel, hence Dell has a few different clauses in their contract with Intel (i.e. indemnity).

However, I think the settlement with Intel should've covered all violations, past and future. Otherwise, any of the many patents that are used in a CPU could result in a patent infringement suit, unless the chipmaker (Intel/AMD/etc) signed a license contract that included passing the license on to the consumers (from HP all the way down to grandma).
Re:What is the legal basis for this? by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-29 00:55 · Score: 1

umm, Dell is the one solidly in bed with Intel. Dell doesn't even OFFER a PC with anything except an Intel CPU, and I don't think it's available in the bigger systems either.

I was rather thinking of the whole Itanic disaster and how HP gave up PA-risc in exchange for cooperation from Intel. While Dell is a good customer of Intel's, they could change to AMD with little trouble. Hence I would say that Intel is in bed with Dell more than Dell is in bed with Intel. As Dell has a credible threat of changing supplier Intel has to be nice to them. Dell doesn't have to be nice to Intel. I belive HP is in a weaker situation (i.e. more dependent) with Intel than Dell is, hence Dell would come out better.

I don't actually know (and couldn't be bothered to find out) if HP still does Itanic systems (where there is no second source supplier) so maybe my argument is moot these days?

--
Stefan Axelsson

sorry, this is booOgus by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:05 · Score: 0

I walk on the left side of the street. Everyone who ever lived owes me $3.

Thx k bye

Not a fine... a tribute by tkrotchko · 2005-01-27 01:05 · Score: 1, Funny

You can send the check directly to me, since I am representing the plaintiff in this case.

We'll give a 10% discount for cash.

I'll stop by around 10 o'clock to pick up the cash.

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you

Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 01:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Intergraph's patents are numbers 4,899,275, 4,933,835 and 5,091,846.

Just don't ask me what any of that means...

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.

Re:Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 01:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Having now read them, albeit briefly, I *think* that Intergraph's novel idea is a neat way of merging the onboard cache and the MMU.

Hate to rush against the tide, but that's a really great idea, that no-one prior to Intergraph had managed to come up with. It's also an actual invention, rather than just an algorithm, or an algorithmic expression of well-known mathematics.

I can't see any great problem with these patents, and welcome our new cache-management overlords.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by ceeam · 2005-01-27 01:48 · Score: 1

Whatever. Even if some bright guys working there many years ago figured out something really cool it is not a reason to sue _everyone_ now. Ask yourself this question - who will get this (pretty big) money? Definitely not those bright guys (I guess). Big research company, screwed on the market, hire law-cketeers, help destroying the industry. I don't see how it helps your national economy or technology progress.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Nova1313 · 2005-01-27 01:52 · Score: 1

if they signed into a contract that all their inventions belong to the company.. no the bright guys wont get it. But that's something they knew ahead of time. My company owns my work, and probably me (I'm sure there was fine print somewhere). If I leave I can't work for another company in the same field for 2 years. Sorta standard in the industry I'm afriad..

--
There exists some positive integer N that you are the Nth person to read this signature.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 01:57 · Score: 1

I don't see how it helps your national economy or technology progress.
Well, if intergraph weren't allowed to patent their ideas, they wouldn't have paid anyone to sit around and think them up. And the latest generation of PCs wouldn't have a combined Cache/MMU controller, and therefore they would be less good.

And that means technology *has* progressed.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by dougmc · 2005-01-27 02:11 · Score: 1

Well, if intergraph weren't allowed to patent their ideas, they wouldn't have paid anyone to sit around and think them up.
While I see what you're getting at, your statement is hardly irrefutable fact. The promise of a patent (along with the ability to get fat royalty payments and maybe sue some people later) may very well encourage Intergraph to pay somebody to sit around and think things up, but you may find that people are paid to sit around and think stuff up that's not intended for patenting too.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2005-01-27 02:14 · Score: 1, Redundant

The problem I have is suing people that didn't *make* or *design* the part that infringes. Intel, AMD, IBM probably. HP, Gateway & Dell? I don't think so. Integrating a part into a larger system doesn't make that system an infringer, IMO
Re:Intergraph's Patents by KlomDark · 2005-01-27 02:15 · Score: 1

"Sorta standard" - Yah, because of pussies like you that sign them at the drop of a hat bacause you have no self-confidence in your abilities and are too dumb to realize that it's just a negotiation tool. Sure, you might have to negotiate down $2000 on your pay to get out of it, but for me to sign my rights away, they're going to have to give me a LOT more than $2000.

I suppose for your next trick, you'll blow a goat on the internet for $5, because you have no confidence and have been programmed to think "It's kinda standard".
Re:Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 02:20 · Score: 1

While I see what you're getting at, your statement is hardly irrefutable fact
No. True. I agree. But it's not totally bogus, either.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 02:22 · Score: 1

Integrating a part into a larger system doesn't make that system an infringer
No, I agree (although that's how the law is, I'm afraid). It's worth noting that Intel's payment did cover Gateway's liability, so someone somewhere was smart enough to get indemnity from Intel as part of their OEM deal.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Twanfox · 2005-01-27 02:24 · Score: 1

Problem here lies that the original idea of patents was to give the inventor time to make exclusive use of their idea for their own profit for a period of time. What chips did Intergraph make that had their patents in use in them? I mean, taken from the article:
Based in Huntsville, Ala., Intergraph provides software and services for plant design, ship construction and geospatial mapping, among other things.
Apparently, computer chip design isn't notable enough in their list of products to actually be included in such a short little blurb. So they patented an idea outside their main field... for what reason?
Oh, and this line from your comment is also pretty bogus:
And the latest generation of PCs wouldn't have a combined Cache/MMU controller, and therefore they would be less good.
And that means technology *has* progressed.
Problem is that Intel and company did not license and probably did not dig through the patent library to find this idea and benefit directly from Intergraph's research/think tank. Therefor, they came up with their own idea for integrating the Cache/MMU controller on their own. Not only that, not having licensed the work (proven by the fact they got sued) means that Intergraph did not offer their patent ideas to chip makers elsewhere. Technology did not progress by Intergraph's hands.
Consider the opposite, if everyone had known about Intergraph's patents, and Intergraph did not license the idea to them. All those fancy pentium chips you see out there would certainly not be in production today as they are. Degraded performance, alternative design, whatever, technology overall would have suffered from being unable to include this idea until the patent had expired. How is this progress again?
Re:Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 02:30 · Score: 4, Informative

computer chip design isn't notable enough in their list of products to actually be included in such a short little blurb. So they patented an idea outside their main field... for what reason?
Because they used to design chips, but stopped in the mid-1990s. These patents date from 1992, when Intergraph were a chip designing company.
Problem is that Intel and company did not license and probably did not dig through the patent library to find this idea and benefit directly from Intergraph's research/think tank.
Actually, they did (or at least it's likely that they did). Intel and Intergraph worked very closely in the 1990s, and both shared IP under NDAs. Shortly after they stopped co-operating (1997) Intergraph sued Intel, and although Intel dragged it out for 6 years, Intergraph absolutely creamed them in court.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:31 · Score: 0

Not only that, not having licensed the work (proven by the fact they got sued) means that Intergraph did not offer their patent ideas to chip makers elsewhere

The patent system was never (and was probably never meant to be) fair in that respect. The one who files the patent first gets it. And they are under no obligation to announce their patent to anyone. In this circumstance at least someone came up with something instead of an obvious broad shot in the dark patent. That probably chokes innovation more than encourages it, but that's the way it is now days.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by rfreynol · 2005-01-27 02:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, Intergraph has a long history of chip and hardware design. They started out as a contractor on the Apollo program and by the 1980's were producing their own VERY power Unix workstations and servers running on their CLIPPER chip.

They did their own Chip design and even did some work on the SPARC for Sun.

Unfortunately, they were also run by a bunch of geeks that didn't know squat about business. That, coupled with them giving up on the Unix market for Windows NT back in 1993 (about 2 years too early) caused them to take quite a fall.

In the process of moving to a Wintel platform, they worked closely with Intel and that is where they got entangled. Intergraph needed Pentiums (and lots of them) to power their workstations and Intel tried to strong arm them into turning over some of their technology. I can assure you that the cache/MMU in the current Intel chip line did in fact come from Intergraph.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Yartrebo · 2005-01-27 02:47 · Score: 1

That doesn't stop politicians from saying that patents 'help the little people', just like they falsy claim for copyright.

99% of all patents and copyrights that are worth any real money are held by corporations, generally very large ones, not individuals of modest means.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Yartrebo · 2005-01-27 02:50 · Score: 1

Have you tried negotiating it out. I haven't, but my understanding is that a large company values that patent at a lot more than $2000, and you'll probably be fired before they let you have the patent.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:18 · Score: 0

I have to give you credit for knowing this part of patent law, but you don't know much about the U.C.C. Gateway has no need for a contract for indemnity from Intel, it's provided by state law. See U.C.C. 2-312(3) and comment 4.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by gowen · 2005-01-27 03:28 · Score: 1

you don't know much about the U.C.C.
You're damn right I don't. Thanks for that heads up.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by KlomDark · 2005-01-27 03:29 · Score: 1

You've got to negotiate it out during the hiring process. If you wait till after that, you have no leverage. It's a bit scary, especially if you really need the job, but you tell them either "Remove this requirement, in writing" or have an addendum added stating that anything you do on your own time, including previous projects, remains yours. Whatever you do for the company, under their direction is obviously theirs, but anything beyond that it yours.

Have done it three times now, including two Fortune 100 companies, so it's not "The way it is" - you can stand up for yourself.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:59 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see "invention" as any more significant an activity than any other job people do 9 to 5.
Re:Intergraph's Patents by SenorChuck · 2005-01-27 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Parent: +1, Insightful.

Although this may not be an example of a submarine patent, it certainly isn't acting for the public interest. I entirely agree with you regarding the approach taken to extracting money from violators.

I'm fully expecting the trolls to come out and complain about all of the whiney bleeding-hearts and how life isn't fair, but think about it. Why isn't life fair? Because there's always someone out there wanting to screw over others for their own benefit. If our society were such that more for self was not the highest motivation, problems like these would be drastically reduced. Then again, maybe I'm being overly idealistic.

--
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
Re:Intergraph's Patents by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2005-01-27 05:04 · Score: 1

Does that invention help keep power consumption down?

I sure hope so, since if things keep going as they are, Intel processors will be sucking down enough power to run a small city. :/

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Intergraph's Patents by chrome · 2005-01-27 06:51 · Score: 1

In some countries, if there are clauses in a contract which are deemed to be unreasonable by a court, the whole contract can be made null and void.

Mostly, any clause which limits your ability to find work in a different company is termed unreasonable. Any company lawyer trying to use it for employee contracts should be careful, because those employees can turn around and sue the company in a lot of cases for unlawfully attempting to restrict that persons ability to work.

If my entire life I've learnt how to make widgets and I don't know how to do anything else, and I have to leave your company for whatever reason - should I have to be jobless for 2 YEARS? Of course not - and the law would be foolish to allow such a situation.

How is HP reliable? by garretwp · 2005-01-27 01:07 · Score: 0, Redundant

How is HP reliable for the caching in the intel processors? Shouldnt that be an issue with Intel and not a company that builds computers?

Re:How is HP reliable? by Arimus · 2005-01-27 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

HP is very reliable... look at their reputation for scientific instruments etc.

As for how HP is LIABLE :> that's another matter. I would guess (INAL) that the arguement goes HP used Intel Pentiums. Intel Pentiums violated the patent. HP should have checked before using the Pentiums if any such violations etc existed - any if they did and intel said no then liability would pass to intel - if they didn't then they're liable for not carrying out due diligence.

--
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Re:How is HP reliable? by gowen · 2005-01-27 01:19 · Score: 2, Funny

HP is very reliable... look at their reputation for scientific instruments
... not to mention their excellent brown sauce.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:How is HP reliable? by Steeltoe · 2005-01-27 02:40 · Score: 1

As for how HP is LIABLE :> that's another matter. I would guess (INAL) that the arguement goes HP used Intel Pentiums. Intel Pentiums violated the patent. HP should have checked before using the Pentiums if any such violations etc existed - any if they did and intel said no then liability would pass to intel - if they didn't then they're liable for not carrying out due diligence.

IANAL.

This is a bit dangerous advice. If you actually check for patent-claims, find one and still buy/sell/use/import/export/etc the product, then you're liable to TRIPPLE damages. Yes, that's right, you're punished for checking in advance!

Maybe HP can pressure Intel, but any small company can't afford to not buy anyways.

Patents are not good for society.

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Re:How is HP reliable? by Arimus · 2005-01-27 03:15 · Score: 1

Hm, the whole point of my OP was that if you check and find issues then you are suposed to sort things out *BEFORE* buying/shipping the product(s)...

I agree though patents are bad...

--
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Re:How is HP reliable? by PianoComp81 · 2005-01-27 03:33 · Score: 1

HP is very reliable... look at their reputation for scientific instruments etc.
Their scientific instruments division was split off and became Agilent quite a few years ago. As for their reliability, only their printers are reliable (if you take care of them). I've had a scanner die, another scanner required Windows to reboot twice before it worked again (sounds like a bad driver), and their DVD burner/video-in combination device (dc4000) is very unreliable (again, the driver is horrible and causes a lot of problems, including freezing Windows). Their PCs tend to die more frequently than any other major brand I know of.

So they WERE reliable while they still had Agilent, they aren't now.
Re:How is HP reliable? by geoffspear · 2005-01-27 03:47 · Score: 2, Informative

No, you're punished for knowingly violating a patent you knew about.
They should have checked in advance, and then either not used the patented device, or demanded that their supplier indemnify them. Yes, it would be stupid to check for patents on a technology if you're just going to use it anyway.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:How is HP reliable? by garretwp · 2005-01-27 09:36 · Score: 1

So i guess everyone else who purchased an intel processor is reliable for damages as well?!?! Since no one checked to see if what they bought was infringing on any patents.

Garrett

Fire chimpzenpuss by ceeam · 2005-01-27 01:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Who the fuck cares? I'm sure there are better topics in submission queue. And BTW - it is daytime in Europe now. There's been no much stories since early morning here. Is /. only for Californians? Really - OSDN - implement a stories selection/voting public process like for comments and fire the "editors" like the one in subject. (Mod at will).

Re:Fire chimpzenpuss by OpenGLFan · 2005-01-27 01:22 · Score: 1

Actually, lots of us care. It was a really big deal because of the Fairchild-based processor used in Intergraph's Clipper workstations, particularly the cache coherency implementation. I used to work for Intergraph, but I got there significantly after the fact; the engineers had given their two bits and the matter was firmly in the hands of lawyers.

Google for the details; it's interesting reading. It's the story of two emerging-largish companies that were trying to become powerhouses, wielding patents at each other. Intergraph's not quite the giant it used to be, and a popular thread of speculation in Huntsville is what would have happened had the patent fracas been settled much earlier...
Re:Fire chimpzenpuss by R.Caley · 2005-01-27 01:29 · Score: 2

Who the fuck cares?
People with jobs?
I'm sure there are better topics in submission queue.
Let's see, here is a story which has direct implications for the livelihoods of nerds everywhere. OTOH, there are such important stories as `intel launches what we knew they were going to launch and someone has some pictures of laptops which look just like every other laptop you ever saw'. Or there is the 2.5 year old science story which presumably exists because National Geographic has some space to fill, my god, that one made me glad I check /. in the morning.

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:Fire chimpzenpuss by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:42 · Score: 0

try this instead of waiting for these guys to get shit canned www.digg.com

Does this extend to other fields? by esapersona · 2005-01-27 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

The article says that Intergraph is suing HP et al. for selling products that contain a product that infringed upon the patent (Pentium Processors).

How about in other fields, such as food.

A farmer accidently grows patented/copywrited (GM?) corn in his field. Sells it to a cereal company that turns it into corn flakes. Can the corn seed patent owners sue the cereal company? How about the baker that is making stuff using the cereal company's product?

Re:Does this extend to other fields? by JCMay · 2005-01-27 01:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

The answer is of course, yes, they can be sued. Patents, as others have said, protect not only the PRODUCTION of the patented idea, but the sale and use of it as well.

There's been lots of concern over patented crop varieties for just such issues. Farmers normally save seeds from one year to plant the next. Farmers that use patented varieties have to abide by the licenses, which always stipulate that saving seeds is not allowed. The next door neighbor farm does not buy the patented seed, but due to the prevailing winds his fields cross-pollinate with the plants that are of the patented variety. He saves his seeds for next year and then becomes liable when his cross-pollinated crops contain the patented genes.

I never said I agree, but that's the way it works in the United States.
Re:Does this extend to other fields? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:45 · Score: 0

seed saving seems to be the exception rather than the rule for large scale farming.

courts found that farmers were legally liable only if they seemed to be acting in bad faith (e.g. suddenly deciding that after years of buying fresh seed you'd like to save seeds, just after your neighbour switches to the expensive new seeds) or if they were themselves subject to the license (which is obvious, and as businessmen farmers don't get any special breaks that you'd be used to as a consumer - it's not a hobby it's a job).
Re:Does this extend to other fields? by Qzukk · 2005-01-27 07:36 · Score: 1

The answer is of course, yes, they can be sued. Patents, as others have said, protect not only the PRODUCTION of the patented idea, but the sale and use of it as well.

OK, this is the OBVIOUS question:

If intel paid these people for the right to use their cache design (in the settlement), why does everyone else have to as well? Do I have to pay them since I use the cache design in my dell pc at work, even though Intel and Dell already paid twice for that processor to use that design?

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.

Patents and monopolies are evil by antivoid · 2005-01-27 01:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Im not trolling... But seriously, patents need to be banned. It's crippling the IT world.

In my country, there is a phone company called telkom. They make BILLIONS in profit every year. The reason for this is that our government has granted monopoly rights to the phone company. It sucks!

The reason they grant them monopolism is because 80% of the government has shares in the damn company, causing the rest of the country to be screwed as a result.

Patents are the same - the hurt local and global economies by enabling monopolism.

Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by Hinhule · 2005-01-27 01:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

Patents by themselves aren't bad. Protecting the inventor/inventing company and granting them the possibility to reap the profit from their invention by either selling it or using it for your own products.

The problem comes when people abuse the system.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by Rakishi · 2005-01-27 01:57 · Score: 1

Without patents there would be LESS innovation. Why would a company spend $20 billion to research something just to have someone else copy it within 2 years or less? A major part of what you pay for something is due to the R&D costs, so prices would go up to compensate for the smaller revenue. Companies may also make their products very obscured so that others can't copy them as easily (which is bad for customers). Even worse, what if you make an invention and need money to make a factory however while showing your invention (or diagram, etc.) to investors one of them copies your invention (and releases it to market before you)? Sure seems fair to me... not. Patents are in many ways a good thing, however imho the current system simply cannot cope with modern day problems/ Also your reasoning is flawed for this example, here you have a smaller company suing bigger companies. The patent is being used against companies that could become monopolies and not by them.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by antivoid · 2005-01-27 01:59 · Score: 1

A worthy statement. Very true. Abuse of a good system can cause the system to be reflected as a bad one. Perhaps they should restrict such things like caching; things which can be applied to many different technologies and be interpreted in many contexts. Sure, if someone thinks of something good, patent it. For example, patent your design of a system which reduces fume emissions; but don't go patent the idea of reducing fume emmissions.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by TrueKonrads · 2005-01-27 02:10 · Score: 1

Amen. You just said the right set of words. One should patent the "how to do it", the method rather than the concept.

--
Lone Gunmen crew.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by Znork · 2005-01-27 02:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Without patents there would be LESS innovation."

Can you cite research validating that claim?

Can you cite research validating that claim for specific fields? For specific lengths of protection periods? For average product cycles? For average patent development cost in a field?

Take a look at the Intergraph patents here. They've had those patents for more than 10 years without enforcing them. In fact, they didnt start enforcing them until their hardware buisness had already failed. Had they tried enforcing them while they still had a hardware buisness they'd have been litigated into the ground by other companies holding patents.

Can you come up with a credible explanation how the patents motivated those 'innovations'? Were they thinking 'Oh, I know, lets develop this cache stuff for our new processors, then not produce them, change focus and litigate!'?

Or were they in fact already going to spend the money for the research in the hope of making their products competetive, and the litigation is just an economic drain by vampiric lawyers on companies actually producing new technology.

I'd posit your theory is _wrong_. Patents have become a burden on actual innovators, slowing innovation, and a benefit for noone but lawyers.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by Yartrebo · 2005-01-27 03:04 · Score: 1

Very few things cost $20B to research, and in every case it's been a government (generally the USA or the USSR) that's picked up the tab. No private company would send the first satellite into space or the first person to the moon for $20B, patents or no patents.

Most patents cost $0 to research, because they came about while doing other work that would have to be done regardless. Research in general is a small fraction of the budget.

Coming from a consumer's POV, I want stuff released as early as possible, as cheaply as possible and of as good quality (versatile, durable, fast, etc) as possible. Eliminating patents would definitely aid in all those domains. If research is crimped (quite questionable, since patents have a tendancy to hinder progress), why can't the government fund some research? Even if they dole it out like pork and botch it up and generally run 300% over budget, consumers would rack up far larger savings in the form of cheaper and better products.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by Rakishi · 2005-01-27 03:32 · Score: 1

There studies, if you want them then google it (Park and Ginarte; Arora, Ceccagnoli, and Cohen ; Bessen & Maskin; Lanjouw & Cockburn; Cohen et al/Levin et al; Hall & Ziedonis; Baldwin et al; Branstetter & Sakakibara). No one knows what removing patents would do and the effects of strengthening them are also unknown (although for static industries this seems to be bad). Also, no studies seem to indicate that strengthening patents decreases innovation significantly. Oddly enough countries with the highest R&D/GDP ratios also have the tightest IP laws however the later is caused by the former and not vice-versa. If you have studies to show that removing patents or severely weakening them helps R&D then please post them. Interestingly enough, there is a quote that goes "If national patent laws did not exist, it would be difficult to make a conclusive case for introducing them; but the fact that they do exist shifts the burden of proof and it is equally difficult to make a really conclusive case for abolishing them." [Edith Penrose (1951)] It seems that they weren't enforcing them because they didn't care until 2 years ago, when some said: "hey guys, we got all these patents maybe someone is infringing on them." It was more like: "okay we spent all that money on research back in the late 80's and never got a product out however if we sue we can recoup some of our loses."
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by zaroastra · 2005-01-27 03:34 · Score: 1

Patents have become a burden on actual innovators, slowing innovation, and a benefit for noone but lawyers.

Amen

--
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by gowen · 2005-01-27 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative

They've had those patents for more than 10 years without enforcing them
Untrue. They sued Intel in 1997.
Oh, I know, lets develop this cache stuff for our new processors, then not produce them
They tried to produce them in association with Intel, but Intel screwed them over. So Intergraph sued, and Intel then tied them up with lawyers for 6 years.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by SenorChuck · 2005-01-27 04:21 · Score: 1

It's crippling the IT world.

s/IT //;

As a previous poster mentioned, it's not just the IT world that can be crippled by patents. Thank you, Monsanto! Does this mean we can't eat your GM foods without a license? Eating food definitely falls under the category of "use."

What happens when we have things like this happen to public waterworks? The end result surely wouldn't be pretty. This is purely theoretical, but imagine a patent on water created by a special cleaning process. That water somehow ends up in city reservoirs. Company sues city for unlicensed use of "special" water. It may seem like a stupid example, but it's the best I could come up with in 10 seconds.

I call it a land-grab.

--
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by rasz · 2005-01-27 04:37 · Score: 0

>Without patents there would be LESS innovation

Without patents there would be MORE wealth

--
Go grab those torrents.
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by k98sven · 2005-01-27 10:08 · Score: 1

You're living in a fantasy-world. Let's pick an industry, say: Pharmaceuticals.

Could you please explain how you propose drug research should be financed without the profits from patents? Making drugs is easy. Researching drugs costs billions.

Which is why there is a market for the Generic drug manfacturers, who make stuff like Aspirin and Ibuprofene which is no longer patented. The competition there is big, and these drugs are only sold at marginal profit. Those who do the actual research recoup those costs during the brief period the patent is valid: 17 years, which is brief because the drug is patented at the conceptual stage. This means about 10-12 years until the thing passes all the steps of development and clinical testing (Which less than 1% of all candidate drugs do).

So what do you propose they do? Who's going to finance the research of new drugs? Academia? The Government?
Re:Patents and monopolies are evil by Znork · 2005-02-01 02:23 · Score: 1

Good choice, as pharmaceuticals is one of the few industries where the industry structure creates an actual benefit from patents.

However, the problem is that the actual structure itself generates the need for patents, not the research costs. Basic research is already heavily government funded. And like you say, this is where the patents are granted. A huge amount of the costs are incurred _after_ the patent is granted, and not for research related activities.

Now, patents are meant to stimulate and reward invention. They are not meant to transfer the costs of inefficient approval processes, huge advertising budgets and deficient legal systems onto the consumers as yet another tax.

So, yes, I'd suggest the government continue finance the research as they're doing today, I suggest medical approval be restructured as a lowest-bidder process instead, and I'd suggest a globalized approval process.

The current system is grossly deficient and needs a complete overhaul to put incentives back into actual research, rather than risk-averse beurocracy building.

Hurray for patents by Laurentiu · 2005-01-27 01:10 · Score: 0

Intergraph said in a release that it expects to pay $11 million in legal expenses. [...] Intergraph said that, since then, its IP protection and enforcement efforts have generated about $860 million in pre-tax income.

Translation:
1. Patent some IP rehashing an idea that's been around since 1965
2. Get a legal dept. and sue anyone who uses cache memory
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

--
Just /. IT

Re:Hurray for patents by William_Lee · 2005-01-27 01:12 · Score: 1

Yeah, and profit in a big way sometimes... According to the article, Intergraph has raked in over $860 million in IP related cases. Sue everyone!
Re:Hurray for patents by chill · 2005-01-27 01:23 · Score: 1

It is quite obvious from their cash settlements/awards that Intergraph has finally figured out what:

3. ???

is.

-Charles

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Hurray for patents by Laurentiu · 2005-01-27 01:29 · Score: 1

They damn well did. The ??? is for those of us with less than 7 figures positive in the bank ;)

--
Just /. IT
Re:Hurray for patents by Yartrebo · 2005-01-27 03:12 · Score: 1

What is sad is that the economy and consumers will pay far, far more than $860M because of this. I would peg the cost at around $10B, because corporations will pass both the settlement money and their lawyers fees to the customer. The higher price will reduce demand and a smaller industry means less innovation and more stagnation.

The $10B number is made up on the spot, but the costs are going to exceed $860M by far. It could easily be higher than $10B.

Legal Expenses by Colin+E.+McDonald · 2005-01-27 01:13 · Score: 1

I completely agree with the original thread reply's subject. Demand tort reform. But, Who will we demand it from? The Lawmakers? They are a majority of lawyers. "11 million dollars in legal expenses." It's sickening.

This is stupid by tod_miller · 2005-01-27 01:16 · Score: 0, Redundant

CPU cacheing is no different that HDD mirrors of magnetic tape or even buffers on HDD.

The whole storage tree goes from the very registers of the CPU to (usually) HDD via caches and lookup tables and stuff at each step.

I am guessing a HDD cache implementation predates the patent by a way. Why not fight it?

I suppose this is hardware we are talking about, but does seem stupid.

But I suppose if someone from 120 years ago says, hey i have a valid patent on cars and engines! we will all say, what, that is rediculous! must be some prior art somewhere (and probably da vinci has some)

Anyways, you know what I mean, what seems obvious now...

Should big companies make it expensive for other companies to claim thier patent rights? fight in court? I say so, because small companies arent going to be having many patents...

There is a danger of a large company stealing a small companies software idea though...

mmm.

--
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com

Re:This is stupid by gowen · 2005-01-27 01:24 · Score: 1

CPU cacheing is no different that HDD mirrors of magnetic tape or even buffers on HDD.
But this isn't about basic CPU caching -- thats been about for years. This is the invention of a new device that makes standard caches far more versatile by the inclusion of the MMU within the cache.

That's novel, and no-one at Intel had come up with the idea before.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:This is stupid by odyrithm · 2005-01-27 01:30 · Score: 1

There is a danger of a large company stealing a small companies software idea though...

Yesterday I presented my current work of 2years as normal to yet another crowd, however our main competitor was presenting before us and decided to stay.. while I was presenting I noticed him scribbling away like mad... they are a pretty big company.. I'm me and and one other person, and I bet when there next release comes out it will have "borrowed" ideas from mine.

Not a thing I could do though. It's just a classic case of big guy about to shit on the little guy. Hell maybe there find something I've done infringes on there work and sue me.

--
moo
Re:This is stupid by odyrithm · 2005-01-27 01:49 · Score: 1

That's novel, and no-one at Intel had come up with the idea before.

Since when did Novell enter the CPU market?

--
moo
Re:This is stupid by Znork · 2005-01-27 02:37 · Score: 1

"while I was presenting I noticed him scribbling away like mad..."

He was probably filling in his patent application on your work.

"Hell maybe there find something I've done infringes on there work and sue me."

Heh, or even decide you're infringing on your work and sue you.

Gotta love the system.

Interesting by springbox · 2005-01-27 01:18 · Score: 0

I thought these sorts of caching techniques, and caching in general, were well known and widely used. I'm surprised that they actually got a patent on them, but I guess I can't be too shocked seeing how McAffee also got a firewall patent..

Re:Interesting by rifftide · 2005-01-27 01:21 · Score: 1

Eric Schmidt once said in a keynote address that the career of a computer scientist consists of finding new applications for caching and indirection.
Re:Interesting by Rakishi · 2005-01-27 02:00 · Score: 1

It's not on caching but a specific and new way of speeding it up.
Re:Interesting by AndroidCat · 2005-01-27 03:02 · Score: 1

McAffee got a patent for displaying a map of where an incomming IP was from? Geez, some people hang some really dumb things on firewalls these days! (Unlike sound effects. ;) Besides, unless it's a protocol like TCP with a completed handshake, the IP address isn't reliable. Datagrams like UDP routinely have forged IPs.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

More than just a settlement by QMO · 2005-01-27 01:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

FTA: "Under the deal, HP has a license for all Intergraph patents for any use, while Intergraph has access to HP patents in specific fields in which it has products."

It seems that HP paid for more than just a dropped lawsuit. They also paid for the use of a lot of patents.

--
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.

Re:More than just a settlement by njfuzzy · 2005-01-27 03:00 · Score: 1

I'd wager that Hewlett-Packard has more patents than Intergraph. If this were merely a patent exchange, it would be Intergraph paying, not HP.

--
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Re:More than just a settlement by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:22 · Score: 0

Well, duh, and the real value of that is the same as a couple pounds of Pla-Doh fresh from my ass. Seriously, do you know anything about licensing works? A bare right to use a patent from a dying company ain't worth jack. It's already public record. It's only useful when you get a technology transfer, which never happens with software or semiconductor patents.

Short answer: YES by FreeUser · 2005-01-27 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

The short answer is yes (IANAL but I read groklaw :-))

My understanding, from everything I've read, is that patent holders can sue ANYONE making unauthorized use of their patent, from the manufacturer down to the end user. Mostly they go after manufacturers and resellers (note that some of those who settled with the holder of this particularly noxious patent were Intel RESELLERS, not chip manufacturers).

This is one of the things that makes software patents even worse than most other patents (which are themselve a bad idea ... inventors don't need monopolies to exploit their ideas, monopolies are terrible for markets, and monopolies on ideas and invention any progress built upon those ideas or inventions) ... software users exist in almost every home, hence, like the new copyright extentions of the late 20th and early 21st century, patent lawsuits can be extended all the way down to a 12-year old using a program on her PC or Mac that violates some speculator's patent on [insert obvious idea here].

Pro-patent lobbiest and apologists will argue that you can always go to court to overturn the patent with prior art if it is truly illegitamate (thereby neatly avoiding the entire point of how terrible patents are for anyone who cares about technological and human progress), and that's true as far as it goes ... until you look closer and realize that, on average, it costs $1 million dollars to overturn a single patent, an amount of money few mere mortals have, and most small businesses can ill afford. This cost makes even invalid patents effectively valid, as so few people and companies can afford the expense of correcting the patent offices negligence, and will be forced to pay the shakedown money (or cease using/making the software/device that allegedly infringes, or both) instead.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Short answer: YES by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:49 · Score: 0, Troll

The short answer is yes (IANAL but I read groklaw :-))

Then stop pretending like you have any authority to offer legal advice or you're likely to get slapped with a UPL fine, dumbass.
Re:Short answer: YES by sgtrock · 2005-01-27 02:46 · Score: 1

This shouldn't have been modded Insightful. The GP did NOT offer advice, only discuss at a very high level what the issues concerning patent law are. His discussion matches up with every single authoritative source that I've read, so it's useful and even accurate! I'm surprised I read it on Slashdot! (joke! really!) :)
Re:Short answer: YES by freemacmini · 2005-01-27 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

One of the greatest harms 9/11 did was to add "friction" to the economy. Companies now have to pay more to hire people (background checking), take less risks, buy more insurance etc. Of course companies in other parts of the world are already doing all that so this kind of leveled the playing field a bit.

Patents add another layer of friction to the US economy. What this means is that in countries where patent lawsuits are discouraged and where patent litigation is less profitable will enjoy a competitive advantage.

Now intel has 141 million less to spend on R&D, marketing, or manufacturing (or buying one of their board members an airplane). This might help AMD, this might help some manufacturer in another part of the world even more.

--
Get a free Mac Mini
Re:Short answer: YES by AJWM · 2005-01-27 06:02 · Score: 1

Theoretically the resellers can in turn sue Intel for the damages they had to pay (and then some).

Don't know if it'll happen in this case, probably be settled quietly with Intel offering some discounts on future sales.

--
-- Alastair
Re:Short answer: YES by nacturation · 2005-01-27 06:18 · Score: 1

My understanding, from everything I've read, is that patent holders can sue ANYONE making unauthorized use of their patent, from the manufacturer down to the end user.

Hm... that's quite a nasty situation. So, if we're updating our "... profit!" plan, it could look something like this:

1. Alice gets patent for X
2. Bob (secretly a friend of Alice's) sets up company, builds product Y using technology X to other companies and end-users.
3. Alice sues Bob for using patent without a license. Bob's company goes bust, as it was supposed to.
4. Alice then takes Bob's customer list and sues all of the customers who purchased the products.
5. Profit!

Assuming it's never revealed that Alice and Bob are conspiring together (though would this really matter?) you can make a ton of money from suing everybody.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Short answer: YES by GlassHeart · 2005-01-27 08:13 · Score: 1

I disagree with your assertion about patents not being necessary in any form. In your patent-free world, every good inventor who wishes to profit off the invention must also be a good entrepreneur. In other words, your world punishes good entrepreneurs who are not inventors, as well as good inventors who are not entrepreneurs. Patents allow the possibility of inventors licensing the invention to entrepreneurs, so that each can continue doing what they are good at, but both profit.
The second important aspect of patents is protection from established big guys. I don't think this needs much explaining.
Now, this isn't to say that the patent system isn't pretty broken, particularly in the area of software. However, throwing it out entirely isn't going to improve the situation much.
Re:Short answer: YES by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 11:45 · Score: 0

You just don't get it.

1) if you release useful, working, tested software, you have a copyright against it. Anyone copying all or part of it is in legal doggie do.
Go to court - collect your paycheck.

2) if someone reverse engineers your creation to get your idea and then clean room implements it to avoid the copyright then
a) either your creation was obvious, so you should not expect to stop the rest of the world just because you implemented the idea first, or
b) the someone just spent a lot of money reverse engineering what they could have paid less to licence from you.

So therefore, if your creation is indeed useful, and non-trivial then you will likely be paid,
depending on how useful and innovative the idea is, and how much quality you put into the implementation.

If you don't want to code and test the idea, then why do you think everyone should be forced to pay you for the privilege of coding and testing it?
Specially since coding and testing are the bulk of the work.

Software patents aren't that old. I remember the economy before software patents and it wasn't as broken then as it is now. Software companies made money, software developers made a living, and a lot of startups (Microsoft included) made good.

I think you have it completely and thoroughly wrong. Throwing out the software patent system entirely can't help but improve the situation immensely. (unless you are a lawyer of course)
Re:Short answer: YES by GlassHeart · 2005-01-27 13:44 · Score: 1

So therefore, if your creation is indeed useful, and non-trivial then you will likely be paid, depending on how useful and innovative the idea is, and how much quality you put into the implementation.
You will be paid an amount that is, at best, slightly less than the amount it would take to reverse engineer and clone your product. In other words, you will be paid the cost of reverse-engineering or development, and not be entitled to the profit that is determined by market value.
Make sure you understand this part before you reply. The big company will pay you about as much as it would cost them to build the product to compete with you. With a patent, you will get paid what the product is worth to the marketplace, or a percentage of that if you choose to license instead of build. Big difference, particularly with software where NRE is basically fixed and profit depends almost entirely on units sold.
If you don't want to code and test the idea, then why do you think everyone should be forced to pay you for the privilege of coding and testing it?
Because it encourages me to invent without requiring me to build and market a product. What the society gets out of it is free use of my invention after the patent expires.
Are software patents too easily granted? Absolutely. Are they too hard even for experienced engineers to read and understand? Absolutely. Do they last too long? Absolutely. Today, there are too many patents to review, they are too hard to read, and many last until the technology itself is obsolete (and therefore having no value as it lapses into the public domain).
But does it help the industry to require every good inventor to also be a good entrepreneur just to make a profit? I don't think so. What I want to see are few patents (thanks to a high bar) that are easily readable (and thus avoidable) and last just long enough for the entrepreneur to establish the product in the market.
Throwing out the software patent system entirely can't help but improve the situation immensely. (unless you are a lawyer of course)
Or a research institute that wants to get paid, but doesn't really want to run a business.

Integraph eh? by GigsVT · 2005-01-27 01:23 · Score: 1

These aren't the same people that made the Clipper/CLIX workstations right?

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

Re:Integraph eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:30 · Score: 0

Yes
Re:Integraph eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:01 · Score: 1, Informative

It is exactly the same company...

Some of their older Intel-based servers and Workstations were pretty hefty as well. We had a couple of them and they were very fast and well build machines indeed.

I remember that Jerry Pournelle of Byte/Chaos Manor fame liked Intergraphs workstations as well. /IntaGraphFanboy

Patents look technical enough by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 01:24 · Score: 0

It appears Intergraph really was in the hardware (processor design) business at one time but have since evolved into a software and services company who've found licensing of their old IP lucrative.

Just another example of dangers of patent porfolios in the hands of companies who don't actually make anything themselves in the field of application of those patents. I.e. they can't be countersued for infringement themselves.

From TFA by ceeam · 2005-01-27 01:25 · Score: 2, Funny

"Intergraph said in a release that it expects to pay $11 million in legal expenses."..."The company created an intellectual property division in 2002 to protect its intellectual capital. Intergraph said that, since then, its IP protection and enforcement efforts have generated about $860 million in pre-tax income."

I'm sure that "classic-style" racketeer division would've cost them quite a bit less.

Re:From TFA by Yartrebo · 2005-01-27 02:38 · Score: 1

If those numbers are true, it would make even Microsoft's margin on Office look small (90%).

A mob protection racket will have far more expenses, mainly because of the organizational overhead and the cost of sending someone to every business in a pretty large city ($860M is a lot of money) every so often.

So you can say that this is the next level in protection rackets. Lower costs and more money.

Novel? by JimDabell · 2005-01-27 01:31 · Score: 0, Troll

Intel, AMD, Dell and Gateway made similar settlements last year.

If this thing has been independently invented five times, then it shouldn't be novel enough to warrant patent protection.

Intel should offer patent protection by codepunk · 2005-01-27 01:45 · Score: 1

Intel should offer everyone patent protection I guess. Hell I guess everyone that sells any type of part should offer patent protection.

--

Got Code?

Re:Intel should offer patent protection by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:52 · Score: 0

I think there is a definite disconnect between USPTO rules/laws and how the rest of the real world operates. When I buy a box with a pentium (or any product for that matter) in it, I assume, not unreasonably, that the product is legit in every way. There is a de facto implication that by selling me the product, the seller is guaranteeing that the product sold is legal/licensed etc. Thats why consumer protection laws place the burden on sellers/manufacturers when they sell a dangerous product or a product that doesn't do what it claims to do.

There is an assumption by the purchasing public that the pentium they bought is "safe" from these sorts of patent issues and that the patent holder won't come after them. I think this applies at every level. if you are an OEM buying chipsets, you are operating on the same assumption. Its Intels mistake. They sold a product they had no right to sell. I am not liable for the extensive patent research required to determine if I'm allowed to buy or sell or use the product. I think that HP, Gateway et al should go after Intel for "misleading" them about the product they sold.

Unless of course Intel told them" we'll sell you these, but they've got patent problems that we're not gonna be liable for... SUCKERS!"

Intergraph IP if anyone is interested by billwie · 2005-01-27 01:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Intergraph Patents all relate from their own custom unix architecture that they abandoned in the early 90s (suckered into windows/intel). Their first cases involved their claim that Intel was trying to strong arm them to get their IP... and I thought their claim was very valid. Unfortunately now they seem to have made a business unit that's sole purpose is to chase suspected patent violators. Some of their other products are quite useful (mapping and GIS) though, if overpriced and underhyped.

check out http://www.intergraph.com/ip/cases.aspfor more info on the cases

and

http://www.intergraph.com/ip/tech.asp for info on how a software company ended up with all these hardware patents in the first place.

Re:Intergraph IP if anyone is interested by SsShane · 2005-01-27 02:30 · Score: 1

Their GIS software Geomedia is very nice but needs some serious improvement if they want to compete with ESRI. However, they bend over backwards when trying to sell their products and their support is great. I just worry that with litigation as a major source of income for them, that it signals a potential death in the future, leaving any municipalities and other entities that invest in their platform out in the cold.
Re:Intergraph IP if anyone is interested by TomsFingerKeys · 2005-01-27 04:17 · Score: 1

I worked at Intergraph at the time they transitioned from their proprietary cpu/unix ("clipper"/"clix") to Windows NT. (This clipper pre-dated the failed encryption chip, also named "clipper". That was a real problem for Ingr.) At the time, the rumor was that we had to because the only backup of Clix source code had been lost. It sounds only slightly less ludicrous now than it did at the time.

Even then, they had some pretty sophisticated hardware facilities there, and worked with Fairchild (I think) on their clipper cpu. Most of the software products were based on Microstation CAD, by the Bentley Brothers, who was sort of an unwilling partner of Intergraph. (As I understood it, no one could purchase Microstation except through Intergraph. I doubt that's the case now.)

In short, I guess I'm saying that Intergraph doesn't seem to me like one of those nasty IP holding companies that sue everyone in sight. It's been more than a decade since I left though, so I can't speak about their philosophy these days.
Re:Intergraph IP if anyone is interested by orlinius · 2005-01-27 05:13 · Score: 1

It seems that AMD has already paid Integraph for the clipper patents and according to the description of the case AMD vs. Integraph (January 15, 2004), AMD has settled and obtained a "resolution of all patent litigation between Intergraph and AMD and its customers." I think that Intel should have done the same for its customers but who knows, it is possible that the situation between them is much more complex.

For those of you interested:

AMD Vs. Intergraph
http://www.intergraph.com/ip/cases.asp?caseid=C04- 00236&Submen

On April 12, 2004, AMD agreed to settle its DJ action against Intergraph and to take a license to Intergraph's Clipper patents. Under the terms of this license, AMD paid Intergraph $10 million and will make additional cash payments equal to 2% of the AMD Computation Product Group's pre-tax operating profits, if any, for the 2005 through 2007 calendar years, subject to a limit of $5 million per year. The settlement provides a license to AMD and its customers for Intergraph's Clipper family of patents and provides for the resolution of all patent litigation between Intergraph and AMD and its customers.

--

A hungry bear does not dance!

HP sells PC's with Intel chips by HangingChad · 2005-01-27 01:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

And HP has to pay a patent infringment settlement? That is seriously f'ed up.

Our patent system is broken. Extortion by litigation has to stop. This is stifling innovation and crippling our economy. Absolutely, un-f'ing-believable.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Re:HP sells PC's with Intel chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 05:57 · Score: 0

Great idea to make buku bucks in the new age of Tech:

Patent insurance! People/companies buy patent insurance to be protected from possible patent lawsuits in the future! In the case of a lawsuit, the insurance pays out an agreed upon sum to the party bringing the lawsuit if the case has merit. If an agreed upon sum can't be reached, then it pays legal expenses (or a percentage thereof).

I should patent that.

*Gunshot goes off, and another AC bites the dust*

~AC~
Re:HP sells PC's with Intel chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 07:34 · Score: 0

Patent insurance would never fly, since in the future everyone would be sued repeatedly... no way to make money if you had to pay out all these suits.

Why this matters ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:02 · Score: 0

Now that the SCO thing is obviously going in an inevitable direction, it is clear that Linux has no copyright problems. Microsoft has to take a new tack if it wants to create credible FUD. The new FUD is about patents.

If Linux can be shown to violate someone's patent then all the USERS of Linux become liable for that infringement. ie. The patent holder can sue you and me just for using Linux. This is civil law. Our lack of intention to violate the patent doesn't matter. If we use someone's patent whether we know it or not, we are liable! That's pretty potent FUD.

Consider the 'submarine' patents where the patent holder lets their ip be commonly used and then sues everyone in sight. The example that comes to mind is the .gif file format in which the compression scheme was patented.

In the grand scheme of things though this patent thing isn't that much of a problem. The minute a patent violation becomes evident, everyone finds another way to do the same thing. The .gif patent generated a revenue stream for its owner but within a couple of years most companies found other formats and most users didn't notice the difference.

The cost of doing BIG business by erroneus · 2005-01-27 02:21 · Score: 1

I have little doubt that any of the companies that settled could have fought to have the patents in question invalidated through illustrations of prior art in some form or another. With enough lawyers and creative argument anything is possible.

So why didn't they is a question that many have asked? I think it's simply that if companies start battling to strip each other of their IP, then IP becomes very devalued and the cost of defending it erodes the net value even further. It is probably much easier to go with the flow and keep IP values high.

As to what the business motive for the current trend of allowing OSS projects full access to patented technology might be? Several likely motivators might influence the trend: Positive Public Image, Threat of having their IP invalidated through illustrated prior art, The liklihood that they may utilize the same OSS project which may be in suspected violation of said IP.

Like so many others, I think the patent system is being very abused. But it is to be expected, I think, as "legal == moral" in the minds of most people these days... a pity.

Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by mosel-saar-ruwer · 2005-01-27 02:29 · Score: 0, Troll

Two points.

First, back in the day [before they were utterly screwed by Intel], Intergraph had some awesome hardware tech. More recently, they've evolved into something of a CAD/CAM software company, but maybe some of the /. old timers can chip in with tales of the glory years.

Second, Intergraph was screwed by Intel in much the way that SCO was screwed by IBM. In Intergraph's case, Intel engineers were up against a wall circa the late 486/early 586 timeframe, and came to Intergraph for help. Intergraph opened their IP portfolio to Intel, taught the Intel engineers how to design a modern CPU, and Intel proceeded to steal the entirety of that IP portfolio - hook, line, and sinker.

In SCO's case, IBM's AIX/PowerPC group was up against a wall when it came to porting something AIX-ish to x86 hardware, so SCO entered into a partnership with IBM to write a next-generation UNIX-ish operating system for x86 hardware, in what was dubbed "Project Monterey". SCO proceeded to pour the heart and soul of their company into Monterey [to include pretty much their entire R&D budget], whereas, just a short time before project completion, IBM discovered "free" software [i.e. Linux], and summarily announced to SCO that Project Monterey ceased to exist [effective immediately]. To this day, SCO doesn't know whether e.g. any Project Monterey code made its way into AIX, or any other IBM OSes.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that just because a small, innovative company [like the old Integraph, or the old SCO] doesn't take the politically correct stand in court doesn't mean that they don't have a legitimate grievance.

Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by PGillingwater · 2005-01-27 02:53 · Score: 1

Damn, there's never a moderation option for +1 Troll when you need it. Great work, Mosel!

--
Paul Gillingwater
MBA, CISSP, CISM
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by stilwebm · 2005-01-27 02:53 · Score: 2, Informative

In Intergraph's case, Intel engineers were up against a wall circa the late 486/early 586 timeframe, and came to Intergraph for help. Intergraph opened their IP portfolio to Intel, taught the Intel engineers how to design a modern CPU, and Intel proceeded to steal the entirety of that IP portfolio - hook, line, and sinker.

Intergraph knew very little about making CPUs. They used MIPS CPUs before moving to Intel. What they were good at, was making fast buses between memory, the CPU and peripherals. They made workstations that rendered 3D in real time, way before AGP came around. Intergraph partnered with Intel because they needed cheaper processors in their platform to compete. Intel needed better memory-cpu-peripheral buses. Intergaph was to help Intel if Intel would provided details about their processors so Intergraph could make high speed buses, primarily for 3D devices. Intel never provided access to their specifications, leaving Intergraph hanging, so they sued. Then Intel used technologies that Intergraph shared with them, so they sued on patent infringement as well.
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:30 · Score: 0

Complete, fucking bullshit. SCO had crap all. Ask Sequent. They were the other partner in the Monterey agreement (they had not yet been bought by IBM), something that few people remember. IBM got Intel UNIX expertise from the guys at Sequent, who had a far superior, original (RCU et al), scalable SMP UNIX at the time. To say SCO got screwed by IBM is laughable. They were a company who couldn't compete on their own, and had no where to go but down. It's just sad how the downturn was made ugly and ridiculous in the extreme in such a short time by such a lousy management team.
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by javiercero · 2005-01-27 03:45 · Score: 1

Intergraph never used MIPS you clod, they used the Fairchild/Nationa Semi Clipper, one of the first RISC chips in the market. Also one of the first superscalars, which is what Intel stole. Intergraph later bought the processor section of Fairchild, so the Clipper technology was actually Intergraph's.

How the previous post was modded informative is beyond me, as the poster has no clue what he is talking about.
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by salesgeek · 2005-01-27 04:13 · Score: 1

Second, Intergraph was screwed by Intel in much the way that SCO was screwed by IBM. In Intergraph's case, Intel engineers were up against a wall circa the late 486/early 586 timeframe, and came to Intergraph for help. Intergraph opened their IP portfolio to Intel, taught the Intel engineers how to design a modern CPU, and Intel proceeded to steal the entirety of that IP portfolio - hook, line, and sinker.

First, IBM already had a viable Unix product since the AT&T days. Second, Montery was no where near release ready when the project was discontinued (because the market would be very tight for it). Third, the IBM suit appears to be a fishing expedition where SCO is searching for where IBM did something wrong and has yet to find it. Ulitmately the SCO case is a contract dispute and copyright infringement case.

The Intergraph case is a classic case of patent infringement. one is a duck and the other is a submarine.

--
-- $G
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by rich.dickson · 2005-01-27 05:11 · Score: 1

integraph used the clipper microprocessor it was originally designed at fairchild before national semi bought fairchild. integraph bought the design team and ip.
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 07:30 · Score: 0

I don't know about Intergraph, but your analogy to and inaccurate facts about SCO casts doubt on the accuracy your entire message.

From day one SCO has always known that *NO* Monterey code made its way into Linux. SCO has known since at least December 2003 that no Monterey code is in AIX, and since Feb 2004 that no Monterey code is in Dynix. The entire case is about IBM contributing IBM-written code to AIX and then Linux.

It wasn't IBM's discovery of Linux that killed Monterey, it was the realization that Itanium wasn't going anywhere, and Project Monterey was to create a UNIX for the Itanium and not the x86 processor.

In any event, please elaborate on your theory of how a patent of Intergraph's allegedly infringed by Intel is in any way a legitimate grievance against HP.
Re:Intergraph/Intel mirrors SCO/IBM by stilwebm · 2005-02-06 13:50 · Score: 1

I retract my statement. I was WAY misinformed. My bad.

These aren't software patents by wiredog · 2005-01-27 02:34 · Score: 1

They're hardware patents.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Net result by Steeltoe · 2005-01-27 02:34 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, if Intel has to pay up, prices will go up. In the end, we all have to pay up for all these litigations and excess use of resources on legal claims.

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

They trusted HP's ink? by AndroidCat · 2005-01-27 02:35 · Score: 1

A month before the dispute was set to go to trial in Marshall, Texas, HP said it inked a deal to pay Intergraph $141 million in cash.

Suckers!

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Sad memories by leandrod · 2005-01-27 02:39 · Score: 1

I still remember when Intergraph had the nicest technical workstations you could ask for without going RISC... too bad they really fooled themselves into thinking you can work with Wintel and yet survive on quality.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin

we still need patents by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 02:41 · Score: 0

three things
1. patents (and other forms of IP protection) are still a very useful tool. look at the semiconductor industry for a perfect example of protecting your rights through use of MAD-style planning.

2. the problem here is that the standards for obviousness, enablement and prior art are different depeding on what industy/PTO branch the application fits into. patents like we're talking about here don't have prior art (or much prior art) according to the PTO because they were only recently allowed (since ~1980) and so when the examiner goes to look at all the old patents issued on cach* + computer memory, he/she/it doesn't find anything. low prior art + low enablement threshold = easy patent = licensing through litigation = pass that settlement onto the consumers. losing scenario for everyone except the trial lawyers.

3. when this stuff is covered here on /. the headline is "big company gets gun to head, forced to pay lazy git." if and when this stuff is covered in the mainstream media, they typically skew this stuff as "little guy wins award against big company" and since big=bad, this is always seen as a good thing, regardless of how much work the little guy actually did.

killing patents is an impossible goal with terrible end results. arguing for changing the enablement standards, or changing prior art requirements for computer-related patents, and trying to get better coverage out into the public are much better goals.

so close, and yet so far by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:03 · Score: 0

The operative word is not "use" but "sell." Please learn the English language and come back again, you illiterate, microcephalic jerk.

Re:so close, and yet so far by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2005-01-27 03:28 · Score: 1

The operative word is not "use" but "sell."

No, it clearly says, 'use' ... 'or sell', not 'and sell'.

Or do you mean 'operative' as in 'most important'? I haven't really said anything else, see my other posts in this thread. Of course intergraph isn't going to go after end users, the money isn't in it. That's not saying that they couldn't.

--
Stefan Axelsson

= $4 million USD in litigation to kill a patent by SgtChaireBourne · 2005-01-27 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pro-patent lobbiest and apologists will argue that you can always go to court to overturn the patent with prior art if it is truly illegitamate (thereby neatly avoiding the entire point of how terrible patents are for anyone who cares about technological and human progress), and that's true as far as it goes ... until you look closer and realize that, on average, it costs $1 million dollars to overturn a single patent, an amount of money few mere mortals have, and most small businesses can ill afford.

The figures mentioned at the FFII Software Patent Conference, Brussels 9-10 Nov 2004 were more in the ballpark of 4 million USD to shoot down an illegitimate patent. I'm not sure what the real figures are, but 1 million USD sounds cheap. However, whatever the cost, it will be neither cheap nor affordable for small or medium sized businesses. Unfortunately, in Europe, the large majority of revenue is generated from small and medium businesses.

One thing that most articles miss is that software patents really screw anyone who even uses a computer, not just developers.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Intel is the bad guy here by Xylantiel · 2005-01-27 03:20 · Score: 1

Seems to me that Intel is the bad guy in this case not USPTO... Intel swiped some tech from Intergraph and didn't pony up for it. Now we all suffer because we all "use" intel chips (and their cache) we don't just "have" them. If intel had just treated Intergraph fairly none of this would have happened!

The "use" thing is also why this feels so much like a software patent. Doesn't it seem stupid that I have basically no idea how the Pentium cache works, yet I'm infringing a patent on how it works. Patents were created to protect rights to manufacture inventions, not use of inventions.

semiconductor != mechanical by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:25 · Score: 0

Of all the sub-human trash I've had to educate on this thread, you win the prize for being the dumbest of the lot. Congratulations, sir! You are a grade A nimrod!

In this case, yes... by phorm · 2005-01-27 03:37 · Score: 1

Here's how I read the article.

The lawsuit was against products containing Intel pentium processors. Being that it's a cache memory issue, it seems to me that the Intel processor/on-board-cache are the ones in violation here.

However, not just Intel was sued, but also several major companies which included the intel chip in their product. Follow it down the chain and maybe they could also sue "Best Buy" for products carrying the chip that violates the patent. Maybe the could sue you?

In some cases, it's not the patents themselves that are idiotic, it's how so-called "enforcement" of them can be extremely broad and thus prone to abuse. At the moment it seems an extreme case of double-dipping and beyond... that is you sue not only the source of violation but any branches from.

Scary enough to stifle US innovation? Would your company become wary if the potention of a massive lawsuit arose just because they use somebody else's technology/product? I think so... which is why we should be against this type of use of such a patent. And it's still an IT patent... with the rate of growth in IT a longstanding patent could easily be immediately profitable, but as patents compound they could ultimately be very damaging to future innovation (think 90% patented older technology in a new product 18 years from now).

InterGraph chip most advanced for its time by peter303 · 2005-01-27 03:43 · Score: 1

The Clipper technology was designed by Schlumberger and FairChild in the mid 1980s and sold to InterGraph. There was a "sweet spot" in the early 1980s when a small R&D group of less than ten people could design and manufacture an advanced chip. This was after Conway and Mead wrote a "circuit compiler" to computer design these chips (I was drawing/taping chips on drafting boards in the 1970s) and before the number of transistors got so large that you needed a larger team to manufacture it. The Clipper proceded the SPARC and was similar in capabilities to the recently discontinued DEC-Compaq-HP Alpha chip. Intel was not even in the 32-bit market at that time. The Clipper invented several clever 32-bit circuits that other companies either reinvented or, apparently illegally, copied.

InterGraph had the same business stategy as SGI. They originally wrote CAD software. But this software was such a CPU hog, that they also made high end workstations to run the software. When Sclumberger (an oil services company) descided to get out of the chip business, InterGraph bought them. InterGraph never acheived the success of SGI and juts remained in its CAD niche.

Armchair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:44 · Score: 0

All of you Slashdot armchair lawyers that think you can read one statute and understand and interpret the law need to go home and find something better to do than spread misinformation gathered from your ability to type things into search engines.

Please do us all a favor and stop posting.

That's one thing he can't do. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 03:45 · Score: 0

By publishing your work, you have protected it from being patented by anybody else.

Re:That's one thing he can't do. by Znork · 2005-01-27 05:43 · Score: 1

No you havent. By publishing your work you may have the ability to overturn a granted patent in court, should you be able to afford it. Good luck on that.

You cant even protect your work against patents by patenting it; patents are granted for things that are already patented on a regular basis.

Many possibilities by Steeltoe · 2005-01-27 04:03 · Score: 1

To see possibilities, we need to let go of all the assumptions we have about how things "work". The current situation with huge companies is ingrained in the present system, thus any big changes will naturally have a huge impact on the entities depending on the system.

Let's take an example of cooperation and open disemination:
Like open source, scientists can (and still do) cooperate to research on things. Actually, the truly novel ideas comes from research in universities, while corporations tend to focus on how to bring a specific product based on such research. The rest becomes trade secrets..

Instead of having the focus to find ways to make the most money, such researchers will research all avenues, also just for curiosity, fun and fame.

But heavier research needs funding. You can have a mechanism to distribute this fairly based on performance and usefullness, either through a expert-group, democratic process or both. The focus will be on what is useful to society, not what appears to be good on the surface and sells to the ignorant masses. Companies may even contract researchers in order to research their issues.

More money and a good system, can distribute this wealth to the right people, not to corporations who enrich the top men and have shady agendas. In the future, going back to more academic research will seem more and more like a good idea, as companies erode the academic arena for good scientists and morale.

Actually, the current system is really siphoning on the academic fields, without giving much back to anybody.

Killing patents may work, and is not the end of the world anyways. Companies will find ways to survive, they're never guaranteed ROI or any profit, neither should they. Research will be shared by everybody.

What we don't need is a patent monopoly which hinders progress in many areas. Only the biggest players can afford this game, and often they just buy smaller companies in order to get new fresh ideas. Something is very wrong, and continuing on this road is gradually destroying our culture.

I don't claim I know this will work and obviously smarter people than I can come up with better systems. However, it did work before and we can develop it further. Of course, our current system is also a reflection of the human psyche. The greed, fear, feel of lack, hankering for more, etc, all limits us. This has increased with time, thus the current system and "culture" (dare I call it that) reflects that. This is spoon-fed back to the population through the media.

Another solution is to have different rules for patents in different arenas. E.g. software patents could be limited to 3-5 years, like Stallman has suggested. Or you could abolish software patents, since there's really no need for it.

But how can law-makers make rational decisions when we let big money rule our lives?

It's a matter of what kind of society we want to create, not just what is most efficient and mechanic. Rational choices and taking responsibility for the land we live on.

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

Re:Many possibilities by AviLazar · 2005-01-27 04:11 · Score: 1

So what you are proposing is to change the mindset of the entire society? While I would love to live in a Star Trek type of society- where everyone has what they need and everyone contributes - it is simply not the case.

Now given this knowledge - we need to work within our parameters - that is people go to work to make money - resources (people included) cost money. That food you ate this morning cost money, so do your clothes, home, etc.

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Many possibilities by laughingcoyote · 2005-01-27 12:41 · Score: 1

Why yes, let's stay with a system with evident flaws, instead of trying to change it to a model which may well be superior.

You go back to the Dark Ages, then. The rest of us will continue to advocate progress, not just "This is how it is so that's how it should stay." If that logic were followed to its conclusion, we would never have come out of our caves. To be human is to seek a better way.

While I would love to live in a Star Trek type of society- where everyone has what they need and everyone contributes - it is simply not the case.

Right...but what? Your logic is "It isn't the case, so it shouldn't be, and we shouldn't try?" The current system is not perfect, I dare anyone to argue otherwise, and that means we ought to be looking for ways to improve it.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Re:Many possibilities by AviLazar · 2005-01-28 01:59 · Score: 1

On the list of misinterpretations.

1)I didn't say don't fix the system. Nor did i say "This is how it is so that's how it should stay". If you are going to quote me, then make sure you quote me.

2) At no point did I say we should not attempt to reach a "Star Trek" type of society. I said we are not at this level, and to ask for a major -high impact change- with little incentive is ridiciulous and futile. The only incentive you can offer these companies would be to tell them one day things will be better because of their sacrifice. It won't work - you need to go a more subtle route, which takes longer and works.

You also conveniently ignored the rest of my statement. How are you going to personally start helping this change to a new society? Doing a few hours of additional programming for the OSS community? Thats more hobbyist and actually an amusing contribution. How about you stop collecting a paycheck?

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Many possibilities by laughingcoyote · 2005-01-28 12:28 · Score: 1

I didn't say don't fix the system. Nor did i say "This is how it is so that's how it should stay". If you are going to quote me, then make sure you quote me.

Granted, the "quote" was actually a paraphrase, my apologies for not making that clearer, or if I misunderstood what you said. It certainly -appeared- to me that, rather than advocating change, you were stating the status quo without advocating changing it. This is, if not outright support, at least de facto support for leaving things as they are.

At no point did I say we should not attempt to reach a "Star Trek" type of society. I said we are not at this level, and to ask for a major -high impact change- with little incentive is ridiciulous and futile.

Your incentive is contained in your statement-living in such a society would be vastly superior to the one we live in currently, with the exception of an elite few. For the vast majority of people, it would be an improvement. If the elite don't wish to go along, then leave them out-the rest of us can do it. I don't encourage advocating big business to change, they won't. (A few might, and could be valuable contributors, but the majority profit from the current system and don't care at whose expense they do so.) I suggest, rather, that like-minded people establish their own groups for the strength gained by numbers.

And that brings us to our next point...

You also conveniently ignored the rest of my statement. How are you going to personally start helping this change to a new society? Doing a few hours of additional programming for the OSS community?

Your point is the amusing one, and is rather silly. I mean, SQL certainly could never challenge Oracle's superiority. And it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Linux might become a serious rival to Microsoft, especially in something so critical as the server market. And I mean, there were even those who thought they could talk some company like IBM into adopting an OSS model. What a bunch of morons they are...

Oh, wait a minute. That's happened. OSS is here to stay, and MANY other things can be done and built on that model-a collaborative effort on the part of a group for the benefit of all the members, rather then intended to benefit one or two CEO's or other types of "leaders". Those who do the work are just as valuable as those who plan and organize it, there's no excuse for paying real workers less than a living wage while the CEO flies around in his personal jet and gets off it into his private limo.

OSS is the model of true collaborative effort, the most successful that I know of to date. It addresses the simple failure of Marxism and similar philosophies-true cooperation can never be dictated from the top down, it must grow organically from the bottom up. (Lay off the flame button, please, I am not a communist, and just stated that such philosophies have proven themselves miserable -failures-.) That does not mean, however, that nothing can be learned from failure, or that failing once means you can't improve your model and try something else.

Now, if you think the current system's broken, get to work fixing it, and convincing others to do the same. If you don't, by all means, defend it. But kindly get off the fence and pick one.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.

What if.. by Steeltoe · 2005-01-27 04:06 · Score: 1

So what do you do if Intel refuses to fix it?

I think most companies just have to take their chances, settling this in court just becomes a necessary risk. Thus making giving large companies yet another advantage over smaller companies.

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

Re:What if.. by geoffspear · 2005-01-27 04:53 · Score: 1

Buy from someone else, whose components won't get you sued?
Unfortunately, Intel's big enough that it would most likely take 2 or 3 of the major PC manufacturers refusing to buy their legally questionable products before they'd care.
I wonder if somone suing every single person with a PC would get Congress' attention and get patent law changed.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.

It sounds like it's trying to stop overseas OEMing by Solandri · 2005-01-27 04:10 · Score: 1

It sounds like it's preventing people from circumventing patent liability by importing stuff manufacturerd overseas (paid for overseas too if you're creative enough with your accounting). That is, if the "sell" clause wasn't there, Intel could move their fab plants to Taiwan, violate every U.S. patent, Dell/HP/etc could buy the CPUs using Euros, ship them to the U.S., and sell them without incurring any patent liability. If the "use" clause wasn't there, you'd have a situation where foreign mail order firms could legally sell stuff to U.S. citizens that violated U.S. patents, while U.S. mail order firms could not.

True in the USA as well by FreeUser · 2005-01-27 04:22 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, in Europe, the large majority of revenue is generated from small and medium businesses.

That's true in the US as well. Unfortunately, large corporations have political and financial cloute vastly out of proportion with their impact on the economy ... because the wealth is concentrated, and can be used in a coordinated lobby/bribery effort that no individual small or medium sized corporation can afford.

The amount of wealth that would be created if the patent system were completely scrapped is mindboggling. The amount of wealth that would be created if the copyright system were reformed, with monopolies eliminated either through manditory licensing, or a redefinition of what copyright does (affords authors/publishers guaranteed income from derivative works, rather than granting a monopoly and by default banning such derivative works) is mindboggling.

But it is unlikely to happen, because those with the patent and copyright portfolios are the very cartels that wield such undo influence on our so-called "leaders," and because everyone not directly informed of the issue fears change as a default stance (a tragic human failing that has always delayed and often scuttled many a necessary reform throughout history)

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Maybe not banned but.... by vertinox · 2005-01-27 04:29 · Score: 1

Perhaps patents should be only allowed to be owned by individuals. No corporations or not individual entity and a distinct clause that you cannot force the invidual to sign an exclusive rights to the patent away to the company.

In a sense the invidual could then license the patent to other companies without retribution spreading innovation without legal restrictions.

That or it might be easier to request a physical prototype and not on paper like the olden days.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)

Times are changing I guess by PalmKiller · 2005-01-27 04:40 · Score: 1

It used to be people tried to win the lottery. Then they tried to buy the next big stock before it boomed. Now people try to patent everything in hopes that they can hit the jackpot.

What about us home brew computer builders ... by scharkalvin · 2005-01-27 04:52 · Score: 1

So am I at risk here for buying Intel Pentium processors for my computers? Or from AMD?

Slippery Slope by Rufus88 · 2005-01-27 06:33 · Score: 1

Ok, let's say I'm a real estate agent who spends all day driving potential customers around in my Mercedes. Then Ford wins a patent infringement suit against Mercedes for some gear cog or whatnot. Am I infringing on Ford's patent? Am I liable?

Maybe yes maybe no by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 06:37 · Score: 0

http://www.wsone.com/fecha/armstrong.htm

The classic case of the kind of abuse you talk about is Armstrong, the inventor of FM among other things.

On the other hand I am aware of at least one case where a company caved in the face of clear prior art. It didn't get near court. The "victim's" entire legal costs were a couple of hundred bucks for his lawyer to write a letter.

this is why patents are good. by geekoid · 2005-01-27 07:29 · Score: 1

these people owned a patent, and had an avenue to reclaim losses.

This ois a solid patent, for advanced technology. This is not a business model patent i.e. 1 click shopping.

If you built a widget, do you think it would be OK for a company to just use it and benefit from it without paying for it?
I certianly don't.
This is what would happen, people would make col thing, then corporation would make all the money.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

AN important note by geekoid · 2005-01-27 07:45 · Score: 1

the people replying to your questions are not experts, and are probably clueless about patrents except what they read on slashdot.

Also, HP paid to use many of the patents from the patent portfolio, not caching

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:AN important note by nagora · 2005-01-27 11:15 · Score: 1

Also, HP paid to use many of the patents from the patent portfolio, not caching
But did they know they should have? If Intel didn't tell them then isn't it still Intel's responsibility? Intel are the ones with full knowledge of how the processor works, much of which they will have wanted to protect as trade secrets. How is HP supposed to have found out that the patent was being violated? Tarot cards? It's simply not HP or Gateway's fault. End of story, in a world not run by idiots.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

no by geekoid · 2005-01-27 07:51 · Score: 1

not in any practical manner.

As is the case for all these stories, there is a lot you nede to pay attention to.

1) HP was suing them for patent infringement as well.

2) They did not win the case, it was settled. Probably would have lost . WHy did they settle you ask? that brings us to:

3) The settle ment ended with HP getting access to several of their patents, and they got access to some of HPs patents.
So what HP really did was buy a liscense to a patent portfolio. If the company didn't have anything they wanted, HP probably would have nailed them to the wall.

it is so ludicrious to think they could sue a consumer, that id they did you could probably defend yourself and still get them laughed out of court.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Trolling to get exposure for you free minimac, eh? by geekoid · 2005-01-27 07:57 · Score: 1

most coutries you wouldn't get a trail at all, you would never have a recourse at all.

The SCO is abusing the system, sure, but how to we fix it woithout screwing you or I over?

The prosecution in OJs case screwed up. screwed up bad. When cast aside all the facts and boil it down to, if this glove fits, he is clearly the killer, and it APPEARS to not fit, and then you don't followup? of course he goes free.

"In what other country does every sentense also include rape?"

what the hell does that mean?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Trolling to get exposure for you free minimac, by freemacmini · 2005-01-27 08:45 · Score: 1

" most coutries you wouldn't get a trail at all, you would never have a recourse at all."

Most countries? Have you ever been outside the US? Most countries have excellent legal systems. Not everyplace outside the US is a third world shithole you seem to think it is.

"what the hell does that mean?"

In the US if you get jailed for any crime you will get raped and the jail officials won't do anything about it. In the US every sentence also includes a bonus rape punishment. That's what it means.

--
Get a free Mac Mini

Patents to People, not Companies! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 09:07 · Score: 0

What I hate is how you sign over all your patent rights when working for a new company! WTF - so you invent something cool and never see a dime for it! I say keep patents, but make it illegal for companies to collect from them except for the _PEOPLE_ that invented the design!

Not enough to matter. by inteller · 2005-01-27 09:46 · Score: 1

....all this settlement does is pay off the lawyers for intergraph. This backwater has-been of a company should have went under a long time ago. They think they can lay around and live off of relic patents then go right ahead. Intergraph is a joke. Anything good aobut that company was sold off a LONG time ago.

This really does make sense by lotus87 · 2005-01-27 10:28 · Score: 1

Arguments for/against patents aside....

This lawsuit & settlement make a lot of sense. Intergraphs technology for high-speed bus(es) and caching was stolen by Intel. In order for Intel to have created and sold chips using that technology, they must have had to release some or all of that intellectual property to PC manufacturers so that they could create motherboards for those processors. (Remember that caching occurs both on and off-chip).

I wouldn't be surprised if other motherboard manufacturers are next or have already settled. IBM may also be next, however it may be the one manufacturer that can defend such a lawsuit. IBM has a long history of processor, bus, and cache development for big iron, Power Series and PowerPCs that is completely unrelated to Intel's technologies or platforms, However, IBM's PC division (now owned by a Chinese company who's name I can't remember) may be just as susceptible as the other PC manufacturers.

What does surprise me is that HP, Dell, and Gateway aren't suing the pants off of Intel for negligence. If not for Intel's stealing of intellectual property and redistributing it as their own, those companies would not be payiong out millions of dollars to settle these lawsuits.

No doubt that in the narrow-margin PC business, consumers will eventually foot the bill anyway.

Re:This really does make sense by pavera · 2005-01-27 11:43 · Score: 1

IBM will not be next, as the entered into a cross-licensing agreement with Intergraph in 2003 which absolved IBM and Intergraph mutually of violating each other's patents. IBM also paid a bit of cash (like 10mil) this is all on their site Here

WOW, buy AMD! Screw Intel! by pavera · 2005-01-27 11:51 · Score: 1

Ok, I just did some research into these various claims, basically when Intel settled their claims with Intergraph they left their customers out in the cold. The settlement specifically gives Intergraph the right to sue any intel customer or distributor. When AMD settled they made it part of the settlement that all of their customers were covered by the settlement.
This can be verified Here

and Here

That is amazing. I'm never buying an intel processor again, nor producing any systems based on intel hardware ever again.

Depends on your agreement with Intel by Flexagon · 2005-01-27 16:04 · Score: 1

Am I liable to pay a fine too?

The usual IANAL, but a lot hinges on this: Intel apparently didn't indemnify its customers against patent infringement that might apply to its processors, so its customers are liable as well, since they also used the patented technology. The one exception so far is Dell, which apparently has a different agreement than the others who have been sued so far. See Intel Settles Intergraph Patent Litigation. Here's a quote:

Dell has a unique indemnity agreement with Intel that Dell claims obligates Intel to indemnify the company from patent infringement claims in the litigation which relate to combining Intel microprocessors and other components in Dell systems. Intel disagrees with Dell's interpretation of the agreement, but has decided to remove the current dispute from the courts and resolve the disagreement privately.

Chip makers by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 16:36 · Score: 0

These chip makers are not going to fight too hard, a settlement is easy and cheaper then a long court case. You would need to read the judgement if HP lost the case, as with the Kodak case the Judge made it where Kodak couuld not sue again.

Patent suits are a threat, always have been, and anytime a patent owner sues, it could put an end to the money, as with Kodak, that was a one time patent suit they won over SUN. A patent owner puts all at risk with a large lawsuit because they found only one or two to sue, while many get away with it. A court knows this, and I will bet if the documents of past cases were read, I would say 85 to 90% of the patents owners cannot sue over the same patent(s) again: Double edge !.

Re:It sounds like it's trying to stop overseas OEM by EvilJoker · 2005-01-29 00:42 · Score: 1

Not quite. Intel already has fab plants all over the world. They are still subject to U.S. patents, if for nothing else because they still have business presence here. Now, if Intel moved all operations overseas, it would make things more complicated, but it could lead to a situation of Intel chips being illegal in the U.S. (and hence, HP, etc are selling illegal products).
That's why MS complied with the EC in their antitrust case (not sure about how strong their actual business presence is in Europe)- If they refused to comply, they lose an entire market- Just like when Windows 95 was outlawed somewhere around India (and why newer versions of Windows don't have shading over different world regions- the country has a law regarding a disputed region, and how it must be referred to)

Slashdot Mirror

HP Pays Intergraph $141m to Settle Patent Dispute

224 comments