Slashdot Mirror
WARF and Intel Settle Patent Suit Over Core 2 Duo
reebmmm writes "The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and Intel have settled their patent suit over technology developed by Gurindar Sohi, a computer science professor at the University of Wisconsin — Madison. Professor Sohi developed technology that was ultimately patented by WARF using money he received from Intel. Last month, Judge Barbara Crabb found that the funding agreement was ambiguous, but that e-mails revealed that the money was an unrestricted gift and carried with it no obligation to license or assign any inventions to Intel. Trial was scheduled to begin today. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed."
He has no control over it, if he used University facilities to do the research and isn't bound by some other agreement, the patents are controlled by WARF. Complain about A) a system that takes control away from the inventor or B) the way WARF handled this case.
So, you're saying that Intel gave him a bunch of money with a "gentleman's agreement" that anything he came up with would belong to them? Doesn't that strike you as the kind of thing you would want a contract for? I kind of doubt that Intel was like "Here's a million dollars, don't worry about signing anything, we trust you."
Why isn't anyone picking up on the fact Sohi was possibly working for them illegally? Did the H1B's run out?
You've got to be kidding me. When I was a grad student at Wisconsin, Prof. Sohi was the CS department chair. Don't assume that someone is an "H1B" just because they have a foreign-sounding name.
Which is precisely why corporate CEOs - and sundry other people at the top of various food chains - are likely to be the least ethical people you're going to meet. Ethically ambiguous people are thus more capable of making decisions that maximize profit, in true the-end-justifies-the-means fashion.
As a civilization, then, we're hypocrites: we talk a lot about ethics and rights and equality and such, but then THESE are the people we promote to the highest levels of both business and government. Is it any wonder all the talk goes unrewarded and stays largely just talk? Look at how many millions of people were, and are still, convinced that either Bush or Obama are actually ethical.
If we really wanna change the world, we'll have to first change the criteria we're using that allow such ethically unsound people to always wind up in positions making decisions for all the rest of us.
The point is simple: if you want certain special benefits in return for your money (and Intel clearly did), then you should be above-board and state them. There's nothing morally superior about "implicit" strings.
If they really want to give no-strings-attached funding -- meaning no strings attached, not "strings-attached-but-we-can-dance-around-and-look-selfless-for-marketing-purposes" -- then they're still perfectly free to do so.
I think in general improved transparency is a good thing, and wink-wink-nod-nod relationships with big corporations are not compatible with that. If companies care about certain things like avoiding excess patent licensing fees, they'll just specify those terms in grants; this is no different in effect than the "implicit" terms you seem to advocate, except that it is more transparent, and because of that, less subject to abuse or misinterpretation.
We live, as we dream -- alone....