Slashdot Mirror
HP Pays Intergraph $141m to Settle Patent Dispute
foxed writes "HP
has settled a patent dispute with Intergraph. Intergraph claim the caching in Intel's Pentium processors violates their patent. Intel, AMD, Dell and Gateway made similar settlements last year."
Does anyone know which patent it actually was, just so we can look at it and see how idiotic it is?
HP is very reliable... look at their reputation for scientific instruments etc.
:> 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.
As for how HP is LIABLE
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
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"
The short answer is yes (IANAL but I read groklaw :-))
... 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].
... 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.
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
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
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
How is it frivolous? Are we supposed to be against mechanical patents now too?
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.
"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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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