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.
Or perhaps,
Intel: The work you do has had an immense impact on the field, and helped us a lot. Thank you, and here's some money so that you keep working on this.
Sohi: Thanks man!
(After research)
Intel: Hey, we own everything you make!
Or even,
WARF: Here's $$$$$$ so that you can set up your lab, hire graduate students, buy equipment. As a condition for the money, we would like to explicitly state that we should own patent rights to your inventions. .. sohi invents something ..
Sohi: Sounds good.
Intel: Here's $$ -- consider it a gift.
Sohi: Thanks man.
WARF: Nice job, we'll patent that now.
Intel: Hey, no fair, we paid some money too, we own the rights.
Judge: (to intel) No you don't!
---
I'm a graduate student, and I can tell you that it is quite common for companies to fund faculty members via gifts --- that come with no strings attached. Why, you ask ? Altruism -- not really. It is often in a company's interest to have a good relationship with a faculty member / university lab. It means that the faculty member is more likely to work at solving problems that the company would like solved. It is often understood that if the problem is solved, the solution may be in the public domain or that they may have to license it from the university --- but that's better than not having a solution at all. The money that the company pays is often peanuts compared to what they'd have to spend to build a similar research environment themselves.
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.
Yes, but it sucks that people have to have so much legalese in every dealing they have with others, because there's absolutely no trust, respect, or decency left. Just from the description of this story, it seems pretty obvious. Uni gets funding from Intel, develops new tech, patents it, Intel uses it, and gets sued. Please explain how this is correct moral behavior. It isn't. It might be legal, but it isn't right. And this means that tech companies are going to be much less trusting of Universities when thinking about handing out big bags of money to fund research, which is something we desperately need more of in this country to keep on top in technology (since we're losing in everything else, namely manufacturing).
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.
I was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin for 6 years, during which I was able to work with Guri Sohi as his teaching assistant, in addition to having many stimulating technical discussions.
WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, warf.org) helps faculty and students patent their ideas and protect the patents. Remember, a patent is only as good as the lawyers who are willing to go to court to defend it--as this WARF v. Intel situation has shown.
WARF was established in 1925, and helped the University of Wisconsin become one of the first academic institutions to take advantage of the patent system. The patent for including vitamin D in milk was the first big money winner for WARF and the university.
The system is driven by the inventor. If a faculty member or student has an idea they want to patent, WARF covers the expenses, provides help with prior-art, etc. efforts, and pledges to defend the patent. For this, WARF gets 80% of the patent revenues, which it puts back into research funding for the university. The inventor(s) receive 20% of the revenues. From what I have heard, this is a larger percentage than that given to the inventor at many other institutions.
-Todd
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.