Jury Hits Marvell With $1 Billion+ Fine Over CMU Patents

Go Go Alma Mater by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 01:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Now stop asking me for money.

Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Jonah+Hex · 2012-12-27 02:04 · Score: 3, Funny

No shit, they should dedicate a whole new building to Marvell Technology, with special thanks to the jury members. It would of course be known as the M.T. Building for short. - HEX

--
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:38 · Score: 0

Knowing CMU it's more likely they'll sue you next.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by poetmatt · 2012-12-27 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

This pretty much makes CMU a patent troll. The $billions offered just shows juries have no idea what they're doing in regards to patents. 2 claims across 2 patents = billions? That by itself is ridiculous.
Litigation lottery by a university is pretty despicable, though.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by loneDreamer · 2012-12-27 04:11 · Score: 1

Time for us students to get a tuition discount?

What I've always wondered is how do they come up with these numbers. If the revenue raises by that number over adding the patented tech on the standard products, then it would be fair, as we are only taking the money the transgressor made. Potentially multiplying that by 3 as a deterrent for willful infraction seems also reasonable, else every company would then just infringe on the chance it does not get caught.

The article does mention 2.3 billion chips sold. That leaves us with a fee of $0.508 per chip sold. The number seems quite steep to me, since such a number seems to me probably closer to the retail price for the whole chip. Which is nuts... does anybody know how much revenue Marvell gets per chip?
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:02 · Score: 0

The Apple and Samsung of the Educational Arena!
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Smallpond · 2012-12-27 06:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Did they just buy the patent? Nope - it was invented at CMU. Are they involved in lots of litigation? Nope - search for "CMU sues" and you come up with Central Michgan Univ, not CMU. Did they offer to license it on reasonable terms? Yes - Marvell refused.
Doesn't sound like a troll to me.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by poetmatt · 2012-12-27 06:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Are you full of shit? yes. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/17582221493/patent-trolling-carnegie-mellon-wins-what-could-be-largest-patent-verdict-ever-12-billion.shtml
don't waste my time with your false flag troll. Was it invented at CMU? no, but thanks for trying. Was this about licensing? no. Is this going to stand under appeal? no. The fact that other patents cover the same thing guarantees that there is a 0% chance that this was independently invented anywhere in the world, let alone by CMU which is not Central Michigan University.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Xeranar · 2012-12-27 08:06 · Score: 1

Carnegie Mellon is generally viewed as only behind MIT for their science. I don't understand your complaint except that a University won a suit in their home district against a company that didn't want to pay. Keep riding high on that horse, being principled on stupid ideology is always wonderful.
To be fair though, I almost landed there for my doctorate but ended up traveling farther for a different path.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Smallpond · 2012-12-27 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Its pretty clear that Techdirt didn't actually read the patents and just took Marvell's word that it covers the same thing. Read them.
Also, they are wrong that CMU didn't offer to license. They pursued a license for two years. Maybe its you who are the troll.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:47 · Score: 0

GP is also wrong to insinuate that it was not invented at CMU. It was. It was developed by a professor of EE and his PhD student.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 09:24 · Score: 0

Not directly a CMU matter, but what pea brain at the USPTO issued additional patents for the same "innovation" that they already issued a patent earlier?
This is fucked up.
Re:Go Go Alma Mater by cthulhu11 · 2013-01-01 21:34 · Score: 1

I wrote the "Office of Annual Giving" recently asking how much they were going to give me. They have not responded.

Patent ware at the max ? by jcdr · 2012-12-27 01:57 · Score: 2

Maybe still not enough to trigger any reaction ?

We will soon live in a world without any privacy, paying for everything, and where thinking is forbidden.
Money, money, money....

Still something to eat ?

Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:22 · Score: 0, Informative

Maybe still not enough to trigger any reaction ?
Maybe not. But maybe this verdict is actually a valid one? Oh sorry, it's patents, it can only be litigation for the sake of pure evil...

We will soon live in a world without any privacy,
What does this have to do with patents?

paying for everything
I know you and others think that a world were everything is free is not only possible, but reasonable, but it does not work that way.

and where thinking is forbidden.
No one is stopping you from thinking. Certainly not patents. Unless of course you consider "thinking" == "producing and selling stuff"
I agree that software patents suck however.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Waffle+Iron · 2012-12-27 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe not. But maybe this verdict is actually a valid one?

Use some common sense. That's $1.7B for two claims that make disk reads a little faster. That would mean that manufacturing entire hard drives, which contain thousands of "patentable" ideas, would be worth trillions of dollars, an amount comparable to the entire US gross domestic product.
Even if the law technically allows such a ridiculous outcome, that doesn't make the situation "valid".
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:48 · Score: 0

Indeed. Perhaps damages should be calculated via: 1/(total_number_of_pants_in_said_field)*profit_corp_derived_from_thing * 3 ?
In other words, if you made $100m building/selling thing that potentially involves 100 patents, then each patent's contribution to profit is ~$1m (more or less, yes, some patents are more important than others, etc.). So willful infringement would be 3x that, or $3m. (and obviously $0 if you didn't derive any profit).
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by LordLimecat · 2012-12-27 04:42 · Score: 0

Money, money, money....
The last century called. They wanted to let us know that they tried communism, and it didnt work so well.
I tried to tell them about the various catastrophies they were in for, but they insisted that it was more important that we really understand that communism doesnt work.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by bws111 · 2012-12-27 04:49 · Score: 1

Or you could just negotiate with the patent holder for a reasonable price instead of making a jury determine the price. Or, if all the patents do is 'make reads a little faster', just don't include that functionality if the price is too steep.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:57 · Score: 0

The patents in question are invalid, that's the fscking point! They're predated with examples given. The fact a jury issues such ridiculous awards says the people are utter morons, and the US legal system is pathetic.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Waffle+Iron · 2012-12-27 05:08 · Score: 1

Neither of your options in any way justifies billion dollar awards for a couple of claims.
In fact, they just highlight why the awards should have been orders of magnitude smaller.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by bws111 · 2012-12-27 05:31 · Score: 2

Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally. If it were not, there would be no reason to ever do things legally. For example, where I live it costs 25 cents to park on certain streets for 30 minutes. If you decide not to pay that quarter, it can cost you a $50 fine - 200x what it would have otherwise cost you.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Waffle+Iron · 2012-12-27 05:41 · Score: 1

So their award should have been the fair market price + $49.75.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-27 06:10 · Score: 2

You should have just warned them that capitalism doesn't work either.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by vux984 · 2012-12-27 09:11 · Score: 2

Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally.
Yes. That is true. But you missed the point he was making entirely.
It is a question of degree.
If I start a hard drive company, and don't license any patents, I will be in violation of several thousand patents.
Should my liability for that violation be in excess of the gross domestic product of the largest economy in the world?
Don't hand wave that being caught breaking the law is more expensive than doing something legally.
Justify that violating the patents to make a single product should result in a damage award exceeding the entire economic output of the United States.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by JDAustin · 2012-12-27 09:45 · Score: 1

The problem with Socialism is Socialism.
The problem with Communism is Communism.
The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.
ie - in every system you will have people who game the system to their own ends. Its just in communism and socialism, those who are not in a position to game the system will always be next to serfs while under capitalism, they still have a chance to succeed.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by bws111 · 2012-12-27 09:59 · Score: 1

If, in fact, you are in violation of several thousand patents, then you do not have a viable product or business. You will have sufficient judgements against you to put you out of business and force the sale of your assets. Claims of 'exceeding the entire economic output of the United States' are just idiotic.
Now it is your turn to justify why your business should be allowed to exist when it is violating several thousand patents.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by LordLimecat · 2012-12-27 10:14 · Score: 1

It works a lot better than communism. Ever wonder why even China gave up on communism and went capitalist?
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Waffle+Iron · 2012-12-27 10:22 · Score: 2

Claims of 'exceeding the entire economic output of the United States' are just idiotic.
Idiotic, but true.
Just like the current US patent system.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-27 10:48 · Score: 1

In each of those systems success is tied to gaming the system. The methods are slightly different, but the end result is the same - if you try to play by the rules you get screwed.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by vux984 · 2012-12-27 11:05 · Score: 2

If, in fact, you are in violation of several thousand patents, then you do not have a viable product or business.
Do you think Marvell not be allowed to exist?
Just a couple more patent infringements and its bankrupt. Its been fined over 25% of its market capitalization for infringing 2 patents. Its products are covered by literally thousands...
A couple more patent infringements and its bankrupt.
If the judge triples damages for "wilful infringement" its bankrupt.
This is like having the government take 1/4 of your net worth for parking illegally.
Now it is your turn to justify...
My turn? You still haven't justified why the patent judgments should be so high in the first place.
why your business should be allowed to exist when it is violating several thousand patents.
That was the point, which you missed entirely, again. Violating all the patents in just one product is theoretically punishable by amounts greater than the entire economic output of the largest economy on the planet. Does that seem rational to you?
That amount is so insanely high, that even if you correctly license 99.9% of the patents covering that product, you would still be on the hook for a handful of patents -- and that would be enough to completely bankrupt most companies, such as marvell.
And all this in a world where everyone knows a huge number of the patents being enforced are completely invalid in the first place.
Thus you are being fined a quarter of your net worth for parking illegally... in a spot that you should be allowed to park in.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by jythie · 2012-12-27 12:22 · Score: 1

Given the price of the chips involved, that would probably raise the judgement significantly.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by jythie · 2012-12-27 12:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

For the same reason the US gave up on capitalism a century ago, pure systems fail.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by jcdr · 2012-12-27 13:32 · Score: 1

Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally.
And what would have been the legal way in this case ? Contacting any patent holders that have claim anything possibly applying to your product, even if there exists predated works that invalid the patent, and then asking for an arbitrary price ti use it ? Seriously ?
The positive uses of patent is to make ingenious solutions available to the maximum of entities that need it and thus lowering the price to uses the patent to a small price for each entities.
The negative uses of patent is to hide claims for some years waiting for someone using something similar into a successful product and then asking them to pay a insane price to uses your patent that there never have heard before.
The positive uses case is a way to spread innovation in the wild, fast, and at low price. The negative uses case is a way to prevent innovation spread because of the risk of too high price and legal action that take time and cost a lot.
This is way so many claim that the problem is not so much the patent by itself, but the patent system that is actually making all the industries less innovative and less competitive, witch is exactly the opposite goal of the original patent system.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 14:05 · Score: 0

You're assuming the only way to make a hard drive is to use the patented ideas. A company could do something radical like engineer its own solutions.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by jcdr · 2012-12-27 14:45 · Score: 1

Nothing political in my post, sorry.
Regardless of the political system, the money is not a prefect way to represent any values in the life. What kind of frustration could possibly need so much money to be satisfied ?
If you look closely into the possible responses, you will certainly notice, that in a way or in an others, owning a lot of money bring advantage only if there is a lot of others without that much money. For a precise metric, there is no advantage if there is no frustration for someone else. Now the problem is to focus everything on a single precise metric: money. A good diversity of ways of enjoying life helps everyone to shine where he is good, and to makes of the frustration of not being so good on others subject more acceptable.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by jcdr · 2012-12-27 14:54 · Score: 1

Interesting philosophic question: could the success only be the result of breaking rules of a systems ?
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by thejynxed · 2012-12-28 05:02 · Score: 1

Not only that, but arguably China's economy is more capitalist than the one in the United States.
Sure, the State dips its fingers in to keep an eye on what is going on in there, but there's far more useless dos and don'ts in the US system, with not just one government sticking its nose in, but several, from the local level all the way to the federal.
I don't know what to even call the mess in the US anymore, it's not capitalist, socialist, etc. It's something altogether different.

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by LordLimecat · 2012-12-28 06:42 · Score: 1

Its capitalist, its just regulated capitalism. It still operates on principles of competition (hence antitrust regulation) and privately run enterprises.
The idea that we "gave up on capitalism" is kind of odd; what would gp call what we have now?
Re:Patent ware at the max ? by redlemming · 2012-12-28 10:10 · Score: 1

Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally.
Assuming of course, the law is legitimate.
There are strong doubts regarding the legitimacy of current US patent law. Some of these issues were pointed out more than 20 years ago by the League for Programming freedom in an excellent position paper. Further, these issues have been discussed numerous times on Slashdot.
Amongst other things, there are serious concerns about ethical conflict of interest on the part of both the patent office, and legal professionals (as a class in society) concerning the design and implementation of the patent system.
Unethical conduct is a bad thing for a legal system, and the best way to avoid it is to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Expecting government and legal professionals to behave accordingly is a fundamental right.
The 9th Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to make it an open-ended document, allowing rights to be asserted as needed when the government or the legal profession gets out of line.
In its current form, it is appropriate to view patent law as an illegal body of law infringing fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment. We need to be refusing to even hear cases until the problems with the system are resolved in a rational way.

We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by lobiusmoop · 2012-12-27 02:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Look at this graph, move the time scale forward and change 'hole left by Christian dark ages' to 'hole left by fear of patent infringement'.

--
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."

Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Critical thinker unthinkingly accepts chart with made up numbers.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:26 · Score: 0

Ah yes, because research has ever only been done by Europe and the US. And the massive amounts of patents in the "interstellar drive" segment of the tech industry sure must be daunting.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by jedidiah · 2012-12-27 02:28 · Score: 1

You and him both would have been burnt as heretics.
You didn't even have to be an atheist. All you had to do is fail to completely toe the party line. Any bible translation you own would also be enough to send you to the gallows.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

What, exactly, are the units on the vertical axis?
Where does the mathematical work done in the Middle East while Europe was snoozing a religious nightmare fit in there?
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by alen · 2012-12-27 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

you're an idiot
the Christian Dark Ages was a European event. China and the Middle East were the centers of science and learning at the time. China, The Eastern Roman Empire, Persia, the Arabs' conquered territories.
the reason for the dark ages was that hundreds of different tribes of "barbarians" conquered the western roman empire. once they settled down their traditions of dividing the lands among all the sons created a power vacuum as the kids would go to war with each other. mostly small minor wars that no one remembers anymore. add the vikings pillaging as well. it took a few hundred years for Charlemagne and other strong monarchs to emerge and even then the empire was divided into 3 parts which caused all the wars for the next thousand years
the Christian Church is kept some knowledge alive during these times. the kings and other nobles couldn't read and basic skills like reading, writing and making books was done by the Christian Church. these newly settled barbarians had no way to duplicate what the Romans had done. when the Turks had all but conquered the Eastern Roman Empire all the artists went to Europe to jump start the Renaissance
China was sailing most of the world by the late middle ages and it was a dumb chinese king that stopped it that allowed Europe to rise up.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am the first AC. I do not question that the Catholic Church did a lot of bad things and things that were not remotely Christian. They stifled innovation and stopped dissenting opinion. Frankly, I don't want the Church to have direct political power ever again.
Yet the dark ages were not caused by Christians and the Church did not cause a worldwide halt to progress. And above everything else, the church softened the blow caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Had it not been for the Church, it is hard to say how bad it would have gotten, but it is almost certain that without the stabilizing force, more people would have died and there likely would have been even more factions killing each other off.
The OP is a mindless droid and that is what I was criticizing.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by tnk1 · 2012-12-27 03:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Which, was entirely politics. If the state didn't have an interest in burning heretics, they wouldn't have been burnt. That's why today, you can still kill people for not following the party line even in atheistic systems.
And that graph is just a bad troll. There are so many levels to how absurd it is, that it would take all day to go through them. Of course, all I really have to point out is that there were no so-called Christian Dark Age in China, and they didn't fly to the Moon either.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:15 · Score: 1

The key word there, in the last sentence, is "stopped".
A "dumb king" has all but stopped space exploration by the US, and it looks like China will be sailing by once again.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:24 · Score: 0

Duh, technological units. Haven't you ever yoused a computer beefore?
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by alen · 2012-12-27 03:44 · Score: 2

really? the dumb king stopped a pork project that's nothing but a jobs program for congressional districts
private space flight is here and the US is also quietly investing in it
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by slackware+3.6 · 2012-12-27 04:52 · Score: 1

Do you know the difference between Chatholic and Christian? Also what is the point of renaming the "dark or middle ages" to have an anti christian theme?
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Firethorn · 2012-12-27 05:05 · Score: 1

Any bible translation you own would also be enough to send you to the gallows.
Only if you made it profitable or politically convenient to do so. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, more often found FOR the accused, IE 'They're NOT a witch', than for the accussers, who often did it against socially and politically vulnerable people in order to seize their assets.
Look at history. Galileo might of had trouble with the Church, investigated by the Roman Inquisition too boot, and he didn't end up burned. Heck, he wrote a piece that attacked the pope and was only forced to recant and stuck in house arrest. There's a lot of this through history. Kind of like today you could be pretty much anything you wanted as long as you were quiet about it. Don't attack the church or leadership. Go to church(don't have to agree, just shut up and go), pay the tithe, and most importantly, don't make waves. Galileo got into the trouble he did(but was somewhat protected) because he was a known respected auther.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:52 · Score: 0

This is just a guess, but do Chatholics really like to talk?
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by dkleinsc · 2012-12-27 06:06 · Score: 2

I agree, private space flight is great news.
In defense of NASA, though, it produces some really awesome results, mostly in the form of scientific efforts and engineering that other organizations can't (or won't) do. For example, nobody else has managed to even come close to landing rovers on Mars. Sure, private ventures might eventually do that, but one thing governments can do that private companies can't is make investments that will take decades to pay off.
There are a lot of real pork projects to cut: fighters that never see combat, ships that the Navy isn't even asking for, etc, which cost far more than NASA ever did.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 06:55 · Score: 0

Critical thinker unthinkingly accepts chart with made up numbers.
67.28% of all statistics are made up
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-27 07:17 · Score: 1

Well most people own at least something, so the threshold for 'profitable' is about the same as 'is alive'.
If you look at history here are also plenty of cases where 'heretics' were persecuted simple because they could be. The pope would offer and 'crusaders' any land the soon to be exterminated heretics occupied, and both sides were happy. The church maintained it's supremacy and the crusader got some newly uninhabited land to exploit.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-27 07:34 · Score: 1

That graph kind of reminds me of the Dune books. Just like there, the Catholic church may have been the reason Europe progressed so quickly compared to the rest of the world.
A millennium of forced stagnation to make people despise religious calls for 'slower change', and enough different nations in a small area to have plenty of backups when one or two tried to slow down the pace of development.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-27 07:36 · Score: 1

The dark ages might not have been caused by the Church, but without it they may have just been a dark century or two.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by cheesybagel · 2012-12-27 08:53 · Score: 1

A lot of people died after the invasions not from the slaughter itself but from famines as the Roman Empire's trade network broke up. Most of the wheat used to feed Rome came from fields in Egypt. Try checking Rome's population in that period the data it is quite illuminating. Then there was the Black Death and other diseases brought to Europe from Asia. Of course none of this is the fault of the Catholic Church which, as you pointed out, was actually one of the few places where the knowledge from the Roman Empire was kept. With a reduced population the rate of technological advance slowed down as would be expected but it did not stop. There were several places in Europe where Roman technological developments were kept and improved like in Venice. The Renaissance was indeed kickstarted by technological advances brought back to Europe after the Crusades.
The Vikings settled Iceland, Greenland, and supposedly North America during the Middle Ages. They conducted raids all the way from Sweden to the Black Sea. So it is not like there were no technological advances at all in Europe.
Re:We Could Have Been Exploring The Galaxy By Now by Firethorn · 2012-12-27 19:37 · Score: 1

Well most people own at least something, so the threshold for 'profitable' is about the same as 'is alive'.
Yes, but as long as the person is productive in the community they should be safe - Killing the tailor might get you a bunch of shirts NOW, but in the future? Galileo was productive, so he was useful.
Heathens are something of a different story - the value of their land/goods minus the cost of killing them exceeded the value of trading with them.
I guess the trick is to be seen as part of the group - it raises the costs of seriously screwing you over, because if you're useful to lots of people, they won't get an appreciable amount of stuff divvying it up, and the rest will object if only one tries it.

--
I don't read AC A human right

Disney's regretting their decision. by jennatalia · 2012-12-27 02:00 · Score: 0

Stan Lee must be pretty pissed by now. Time to unleash the Juggernaut, bitch!

Kill competition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:01 · Score: 0

Get rid of the patent system, it's a joke.

Re:Kill competition by cod3r_ · 2012-12-27 02:35 · Score: 1

agreed. This is so dumb. Even if some little guy invents it the big guy comes in and buys it from him. It's a form of Monopoly. 'Merica use to care about those things, but I guess we don't anymore. Eventually it's going to be like 1 company that owns all the technology.
Re:Kill competition by Dishevel · 2012-12-27 04:55 · Score: 1

All restaurants are Taco Bell.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:09 · Score: 0

Marvell CEO Sehat Sutadja's car

talk about classy. (!)

Re:good by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-27 02:12 · Score: 1

He deserves it. He's a "maker" and not a "taker."
haw haw haw
Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:24 · Score: 0

IIRC Marvell is a Californian company paying US taxes, and the guy that is a the top is so proud of what he has built or is part of that he has the company name on his car. Good on him.
Now they could be bust because of a crank patent lawsuit paying out 100x - 1000x the patent's worth, so the jobs will go, the leadership will go to China and the US will be poorer overall.
YEAH, PATENTS! GO GO GO!
Re:good by ArchieBunker · 2012-12-27 06:02 · Score: 1

Can't see shit in that picture except a license plate. I'm supposed to be outraged over a Ferrari? They aren't anywhere near the top of the supercar price list.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard

Software patens must die by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:10 · Score: 0

They are evil and kills innovation, please kill them of

Re:Software patens must die by gnupun · 2012-12-27 09:26 · Score: 1

Patents are definitely not evil. You will have considerably less innovation without patents -- no one wants to work for free.

The $1 billion fine over two not-so-innovative claims is simply ridiculous and extremely greedy. It should be a few million, at most. How do they calculate these fines? Does the jury know anything about the patent system, the hard disk subsystem or this particular patent?

SSDs? by slashmydots · 2012-12-27 02:15 · Score: 1

So they claim Marvel make hard drives but since they don't, I take it they're talking about their SSD controllers? There's no way in hell they made a billion off that. Otherwise the article contradicts itself and says they instead supply parts for others to make spinning hard drives and gives a number. They said WD is their big customer but not sole customer so...Seagate sued their own supplier? Or they join sued or...I don't get it. Really nothing in this article makes sense. Does anyone have a link to a more accurate one?

P.S. after Marvel's long history of the world's worst ethernet controllers, they deserve this

Re:SSDs? by Quakeulf · 2012-12-27 02:17 · Score: 1

Marvel VS. Patents: Fate of two systems
Re:SSDs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:22 · Score: 1

Marvell has made controllers for spindle-based HDDs for many, many years, both SAS and SATA. This press release is over 5 years old and mentions their existing use in SATA. Considering that there is a Marvell controller in 75% of the HDDs in use, I'd say they've made billions off of their chips. Whether they've made billions from the supposed patent infringement, I can't comment on.
Re:SSDs? by osu-neko · 2012-12-27 02:47 · Score: 2

Which article are you talking about? The one linked in the summary doesn't say anything of the things you said it did (it doesn't claim Marvell makes hard drives, doesn't claim they made a billion off of that, and doesn't even mention Seagate).

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:SSDs? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-12-27 02:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Whether they've made billions from the supposed patent infringement, I can't comment on.
One thing is for sure - CMU never would have made a billion dollars by selling products containing their "invention". Even assuming the patent is worthy and that Imaginary Property deserves to exist, they never would have made anything near that amount by licensing the technology.
If they licensed the patent to Marvell for $1.5M the staff lawyers probably would have thrown a decent party.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:SSDs? by Dupple · 2012-12-27 03:05 · Score: 1

I searched for more than the BBC article
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/marvell-technology-group-seeks-to-overturn-jurys-patent-infringement-findings-184920041.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/jury-slams-marvell-with-mammoth-1-17-billion-patent-verdict/
There's also some more info behind the WSJ pay wall.

--
Watch those corners

CMU is clearly a patent troll by alen · 2012-12-27 02:23 · Score: 0

do they make any products? they should just give up their patents for the good of the geeks

Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by archer,+the · 2012-12-27 02:49 · Score: 1

If CMU invested capital in discovering/creating these innovations, they should get *some* return on their investment. Otherwise, they'll have to stop discovering/innovating because they can't afford it.
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by rolfwind · 2012-12-27 03:24 · Score: 0

Why are they entitled to a return? I invested in a number of things without a return.
Do we design entire systems where people are entitle to returns just because they invested in something?
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:57 · Score: 0

Can they claim that that research was fully privately funded and didn't involve any NSF grants, etc? And if they did use public moneh for the research, why should they be the only ones to benefit?
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by VortexCortex · 2012-12-27 04:50 · Score: 0

If CMU invested capital in discovering/creating these innovations, they should get *some* return on their investment. Otherwise, they'll have to stop discovering/innovating because they can't afford it.
That's what I say too. For instance, All the people in the field researching the same technology should get *some* return on their investment from the newly granted patent holders who just prevented them from using their research. Otherwise, they'll have to stop discovering/innovating because they can't afford it, you know, because patents stifle progress as their core function. Why should any one group of researchers be granted a monopoly, simply because they're first? That's horrible thinking. What about they guy who showed up with a working telephone an hour after Alexander G. Bell did? He's now unable to even sell or USE the efforts of his own creation? Fuck. That.
Tell you what, I refuse to look at any software related patents because I make software. I'm an individual skilled in the arts just like all the other folks working in the field who get sued for patent infringement. If I stumble across an idea that makes sense while doing my job and it happens to infringe a patent, doesn't that make it fucking obvious by definition? Destroy All Patents. They're dumb as hell. Show me ONE Scientific report that shows patents as beneficial to our society vs not having patents... Guess what? NONE EXIST. We must abolish patents to do the experiment. We're running the whole world on UNPROVEN HYPOTHESES!?!
You humans are the worst. Can't even understand simple shit like the scientific method. You don't roll it out all over, you do so to a portion of the industries and then make a comparison.... What's that you say? The Automotive and Fashion industries are not allowed Design Patents, yet they are innovative in Design? So, let me get this straight... You ran the fucking experiment and IGNORED THE RESULTS!?! That's it. I'm disowning the entire human race. You fuckers might be related genetically to me, but you're sure as fuck not the same race as I -- You damn dirty apes! You've made monkeys of us ALL!
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by alexander_686 · 2012-12-27 05:03 · Score: 2

Returns are how you score the game. Or, to put it another way – is what you doing adding value or are you just blowing in the wind.
And if you have invested in things that don’t return returns I suggest that you are not investing – you’re doing something else. Doesn’t mean you doing things wrong – it’s just not investing.
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by damienl451 · 2012-12-27 06:00 · Score: 2

But you can also decide to forego this return on investment for the good of mankind. Which, arguably, is what universities should be pursuing in the first place, not trying to maximize their ROI, as private companies do very well.
Profits are very useful because you get valuable information about what you're doing and it allows resources to be put to the most valuable use. But it doesn't really apply to basic research. That kind of research is not meant to create products that can be sold for a profit, but to increase our collective knowledge. This may or may not give rise to new applications, technologies, and products, but that's not main point. And if something does prove valuable, wouldn't it be better if it were freely licensed to all interested parties to allow for cheap production, for other people to freely improve upon it, etc.?
That's the whole point behind endowments. Give universities so much money that their survival doesn't depend on their monetizing their discoveries. CMU has a $1 billion endowment that makes it very unlikely that it'll have to stop innovating because they failed to secure a patent on everything they discover. Especially since much of the research conducted in universities is actually funded by the government, as a public good.
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 14:54 · Score: 0

Go back to the USSR commrade.
Re:CMU is clearly a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 10:01 · Score: 0

Yes, but if your business model is not in line with the market, do you change or do you force the market to change?

Violating Single patent Claims? by PPH · 2012-12-27 02:24 · Score: 1

Individual patent claims are not sufficient to describe the scope of a patent. They only do so collectively. So, how is it that Marvell (or anyone else) can be held liable for violating a single claim?

Of course, I'm thinking of the infamous claim: "A microprocessor controller comprising memory, input-output and memory", which when added to prior art seems to create novel technology in the eyes of the USPTO. If one could violate a single claim, then this one alone would innovation in the computing field.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Violating Single patent Claims? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:54 · Score: 0

Generally, each claim stands on it's own. All it takes to be found liable for damages is infringement of a single claim. In fact, some patents will issue with merely a single claim. As for the infamous claim: "A microprocessor controller comprising memory, input-output and memory" I'm not aware of that particular claim, but I highly suspect it is invalid unless it is a dependent (e.g. 2. A microprocessor controller of claim 1 comprising memory, input-output and memory. -- where novelty is in claim 1). It's not uncommon to see extremely broad claims that have no hope in hell of actually being allowed in published patent applications. But, assuming the Patent Office does it's job (a big assumption) such claims won't actually survive prosecution and end up in the allowed patent.
Re:Violating Single patent Claims? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:54 · Score: 0

Thank you for mentioning this. The summary does make it sound like a claim of "where the sky is blue" would include all inventions under the sky, comprising mostly of nitrogen.
Re:Violating Single patent Claims? by Dragonslicer · 2012-12-27 03:38 · Score: 1

You're clearly confused about what a claim in a patent is. Each claim of a patent is considered to be a separate invention, although you can have dependent claims (e.g. "The system of claim 1 where..."), which would include everything from the claim that it depends on, in addition to what is in the dependent claim. "A microprocessor controller comprising memory, input-output and memory" could never be an entire claim, unless you really were the first person to invent the microcontroller. Things like "processor" or "memory" might be parts of a claim, called elements or limitations.

This just in: A Message From Comrade Obongo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:26 · Score: 0

He didn't build those chips.

-Comrade Obongo

Re:This just in: A Message From Comrade Obongo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:49 · Score: 0

Who needs no stinkin' context, eh AC?

punishment by bzipitidoo · 2012-12-27 02:29 · Score: 0

What's with this urge to punish? What has Marvell done that's so evil? Other than being a powerful US corporation, that is.

A good system would not be so punitive. And the application is so arbitrary and uneven. It isn't even clear that any crime was committed at all, and levying harsh punishments in such situations is just plain evil. I'll whip up a car analogy: two people are arguing over who owns a car and go to court. The court orders that the car be destroyed, and for good measure, that their driveways be ripped up. Then one of the disputants is ordered to buy a new car for the use of the other, and if unable to pay, is forced to sell their house. Which one pays for the new car for the other is determined by coin flip. That'll learn them! Wouldn't be long before that court withered into irrelevance as everyone avoided it like the plague.

If we had a decent patronage system in place, CMU would like it that someone is using ideas they researched, as they could apply for funds from the various patrons, and Marvell and anyone else could use any ideas they wanted without having to get permission or worry about some confused, crazy jury slamming them with a disproportionate "remedy".

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Re:punishment by Ifthir · 2012-12-27 02:46 · Score: 3, Informative

What's with this urge to punish? What has Marvell done that's so evil? Other than being a powerful US corporation, that is.
They made billions of dollars off the patents of others and didn't pay appropriately to the patent holders?
Re:punishment by tnk1 · 2012-12-27 03:21 · Score: 1

Thing is, making money is how for-profit entities operate. Non-profits, like CMU, get grants and patronage. I admit, without a proper patronage system, which the GP suggests, CMU is frequently going to come up short on funds, especially if they want to expand and improve their research abilities. That does not mean, however, that making a lot of money means that it's okay to punish a for-profit business for taking that idea and making profit on it without being just a little critical of the system that expects research universities to provide public research, while at the same time, feeling the need to cash in on what the for-profit producers do with it.
Re:punishment by Christian+Smith · 2012-12-27 03:55 · Score: 1

What's with this urge to punish? What has Marvell done that's so evil? Other than being a powerful US corporation, that is.
They made billions of dollars off the patents of others and didn't pay appropriately to the patent holders?
Seagate? I haven't penetrated the patent speak of the patents in question, but the 839 patent looks suspiciously similar to the Seagate patent referenced. This is just an example of courts and expensive lawyers doing the job that should be done up front by the US patent office, ie. looking for and evaluating prior art.
Patent awards should be (as I understand it) compensated on what the plaintiff would have made had the infringement not taken place (lost sales or licensing fees). I would be very surprised if CMU had made $1bn off any licensing program, let alone 2 patents to a single licensee, so I fail to see how such a large reward could be made.
IANAL etc.
Re:punishment by Fnord666 · 2012-12-27 04:18 · Score: 1

What's with this urge to punish? What has Marvell done that's so evil? Other than being a powerful US corporation, that is.
They made billions of dollars off the patents of others and didn't pay appropriately to the patent holders?
I would hope that a judge/jury would only be able to award punitive damages if the plaintiff provided convincing evidence that the defendant willfully and knowingly violated the plaintiff's patents.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:punishment by BitZtream · 2012-12-27 12:07 · Score: 1

You mean like how Marvell turned down CMU's offer to license the patents? I think that constitutes willful infringement, don't you?

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

What has Iron Man done now ? by mbone · 2012-12-27 02:33 · Score: 0

Am I the only person who thought this article was about Marvel Comics, and wondered what they could do to get a billion dollar patent judgement against them? A patent on rocket-propellled iron suits?

Re:What has Iron Man done now ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:44 · Score: 0

Hurr hurr hurr.
Don't quit your day job.

Marvell, Disneyy, Pixxar, Lucassfilm... by tepples · 2012-12-27 02:54 · Score: 1

How would it feel to score a million dollar software patent judgment against Pixar and Lucasfilm?

Given just the titles of those claims, by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-12-27 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

The idea of a jury of non-engineers deciding on their novelty is at best weird.

Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Yabol · 2012-12-27 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The idea of a bunch of people from Pittsburgh voting to not give CMU a bunch of loot is at best weird.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:38 · Score: 0

Marvel should have used the Chewbacca defense. If the jurors DIDN'T fall for it, that would be at best weird.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by ArchieBunker · 2012-12-27 06:19 · Score: 1

Pittsburgh is a modern day Shelbyville from The Simpsons. They have 446 bridges and but spent half a billion dollars drilling a tunnel under the river for their light rail line. Rumor has it the project cut corners and will have to close in a few years because the yearly maintenance will bankrupt the city.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Theaetetus · 2012-12-27 07:35 · Score: 1

The idea of a jury of non-engineers deciding on their novelty is at best weird.
There are expert witnesses on both sides who are saying that the patents are either novel or not. Really, the jury is deciding on the credibility of those witnesses, and you don't need an engineer for that.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 16:45 · Score: 0

Yes, you do. Otherwise, you judge credibility based upon how good looking the experts are. Credibility can only be judged with SOME existing knowledge on a subject.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by pipedwho · 2012-12-28 01:54 · Score: 1

The idea of a jury of non-engineers deciding on their novelty is at best weird.
There are expert witnesses on both sides who are saying that the patents are either novel or not. Really, the jury is deciding on the credibility of those witnesses, and you don't need an engineer for that.
Actually, you do. Expert witnesses are picked based on their ability to convince a layman that they are more credible than the opposing 'expert witness'. And on more than one occasion, I've personally butted heads against an opposing 'expert' that was so far out of his depth that any random slashdotter would have put him to shame. However, he always sounded very convincing and sincere when in his 'expert opinion', he strongly disagreed with his "learned colleague's" assertions. I have no idea how this guy got his technical 'qualifications', but it was clear he is chosen for his presentability and not his engineering expertise. I also assume that, in general, this guy (and all those like him) just say whatever they're being paid to say.
What's a jury to do when they are faced with that? Decide credibility based on whichever one reminded them more of their favourite uncle?
Without any ability to be able to understand the technical merits of what is being presented, there is no way a jury can make an appropriate determination between two opposing 'paid-for' experts.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Theaetetus · 2012-12-28 02:20 · Score: 1

The idea of a jury of non-engineers deciding on their novelty is at best weird.
There are expert witnesses on both sides who are saying that the patents are either novel or not. Really, the jury is deciding on the credibility of those witnesses, and you don't need an engineer for that.
Actually, you do. Expert witnesses are picked based on their ability to convince a layman that they are more credible than the opposing 'expert witness'. And on more than one occasion, I've personally butted heads against an opposing 'expert' that was so far out of his depth that any random slashdotter would have put him to shame. However, he always sounded very convincing and sincere when in his 'expert opinion', he strongly disagreed with his "learned colleague's" assertions. I have no idea how this guy got his technical 'qualifications', but it was clear he is chosen for his presentability and not his engineering expertise. I also assume that, in general, this guy (and all those like him) just say whatever they're being paid to say.
What's a jury to do when they are faced with that? Decide credibility based on whichever one reminded them more of their favourite uncle?
Without any ability to be able to understand the technical merits of what is being presented, there is no way a jury can make an appropriate determination between two opposing 'paid-for' experts.
The jury should decide based on the evidence presented at trial and the credibility of the witnesses. Otherwise, they're not judging the facts before them, but their pre-existing and prejudicial knowledge of related facts. Basically, what you're suggesting is that they use knowledge external to the trial - the same thing people on Slashdot complained about when Hogan did it in the Apple/Samsung trial.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by pipedwho · 2012-12-28 09:24 · Score: 1

This applies to regular juries where there is a single source of (potentially faulty) external knowledge being introduced into the jury box. In that situation there is a good chance that the introduced 'external testimony' will go unchallenged. That is what happened in the Apple/Samsung case - the jury basically listened to one guy who was able to gain their trust as being an impartial expert on the issue at hand. In reality he was heavily biased and didn't properly understand the issues. But, since there weren't 11 other people on the jury that could refute his claims or offer alternative interpretations, the final decision naturally leant towards whatever his biases were.
A purely non-expert jury sounds good in theory if you don't mind allowing the trial to continue for 3 years while the jury learns all the necessary background knowledge to be able to understand and decide on the technical issue at hand - and that's assuming the jury is even capable. That is why these things should not be handled by jury trials where the jury has no background in the technical area(s) at hand.
The 'facts' in this case could very well be presented to an expert panel (randomly chosen from people working in the appropriate field(s)), and have the technical issue decided there. Then the lay jury could decide on the remaining facts. But, why have two juries, when the expert jury could easily decide on both. Even a half-and-half jury of randomly selected experts and laymen would be better than having a jury entirely composed of men and women unable to properly understand the facts.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Theaetetus · 2012-12-28 15:24 · Score: 1

This applies to regular juries where there is a single source of (potentially faulty) external knowledge being introduced into the jury box. In that situation there is a good chance that the introduced 'external testimony' will go unchallenged. That is what happened in the Apple/Samsung case - the jury basically listened to one guy who was able to gain their trust as being an impartial expert on the issue at hand. In reality he was heavily biased and didn't properly understand the issues. But, since there weren't 11 other people on the jury that could refute his claims or offer alternative interpretations, the final decision naturally leant towards whatever his biases were.
Actually, there were. At least one of the other people on the jury had a patent, and two others did during voir dire. They were even in computer related professions.

A purely non-expert jury sounds good in theory if you don't mind allowing the trial to continue for 3 years while the jury learns all the necessary background knowledge to be able to understand and decide on the technical issue at hand - and that's assuming the jury is even capable. That is why these things should not be handled by jury trials where the jury has no background in the technical area(s) at hand.
The 'facts' in this case could very well be presented to an expert panel (randomly chosen from people working in the appropriate field(s)), and have the technical issue decided there. Then the lay jury could decide on the remaining facts. But, why have two juries, when the expert jury could easily decide on both. Even a half-and-half jury of randomly selected experts and laymen would be better than having a jury entirely composed of men and women unable to properly understand the facts.
Professional juries are an aspect of many European legal systems, so take that as you will.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by pipedwho · 2012-12-28 17:15 · Score: 1

Actually, there were. At least one of the other people on the jury had a patent, and two others did during voir dire. They were even in computer related professions.
So instead of one juror with a vested interest in keeping the patent system broken, they had two?
That is truly scary. What proportion of the population in CA would have to hold patents for a 'randomly' selected sample to uncover 4 patent holders during jury empanelment? Those odds are like selecting a jury from a prison ward and finding a handful had been previously convicted of the same crime, and letting a couple still serve on the panel.
There are very few patents that would survive a full scrutiny in the face of reasonable limits on obviousness and similarity to prior art. And far too many patents are simply milking the system. Anyone with a patent either knows this to be true and plays along, or is deluding themselves into believing they are so much cleverer than everyone else in the field. So it's in the interest of those jurors to perpetuate the system by upholding as many claims as they can get away with.
When courts started ruling that any inventive step no matter how minuscule/obvious is fair game, the small players were screwed.
My previous company spent a few hundred grand defending itself against a patent troll - and we weren't even infringing on any of their claims. I assume they were hoping that we'd settle before the verdict (and they surely must have known they didn't have a valid case). The judge actually told them off in the end, but they played dumb and somehow avoided being forced to pay our legal costs. I'm sure the lawyers on both sides were more than happy with the result.
Re:Given just the titles of those claims, by Theaetetus · 2012-12-28 19:12 · Score: 1

Actually, there were. At least one of the other people on the jury had a patent, and two others did during voir dire. They were even in computer related professions.
So instead of one juror with a vested interest in keeping the patent system broken, they had two?
That is truly scary.
No, that's supposition and FUD.

What proportion of the population in CA would have to hold patents for a 'randomly' selected sample to uncover 4 patent holders during jury empanelment? Those odds are like selecting a jury from a prison ward and finding a handful had been previously convicted of the same crime, and letting a couple still serve on the panel.
Sounds like you've never been to Silicon Valley.

There are very few patents that would survive a full scrutiny in the face of reasonable limits on obviousness and similarity to prior art.

[Citation needed]

And far too many patents are simply milking the system. Anyone with a patent either knows this to be true and plays along, or is deluding themselves into believing they are so much cleverer than everyone else in the field.

Disagree with you and they must be a shill, right? Why bother with facts and logic when you've got fallacies, eh?

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by Sponge+Bath · 2012-12-27 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

A story about CMU suing Marvell for patent infringement and you are blabbering about Apple? You should realize not everyone shares your off topic obsession.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:26 · Score: 1

The BSD license and philosophy, I'm not sure you understand it...

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by jkrise · 2012-12-27 03:31 · Score: 0

A story about CMU suing Marvell for patent infringement and you are blabbering about Apple?

I'm not the one blabbering. If you'd cared to read the referenced article (I know, I know... it's a dirty trait over here); you'll see references to the Apple-Samsung patent case.

That leaves the recent $1.05bn jury award to Apple in its case versus Samsung as the largest outstanding figure - the judge in the case has yet to finalise the sum.

I was just wondering the fallout of the UC, Berkley having applied for, and gotten patents on implementations of their ideas in BSD Unix.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....

Pity the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:31 · Score: 1

Just listen to the language used to describe the innovative aspect of the two claimed patents and think how few people have the brainpower to even understand what they are talking about so that they could figure out how the claimed patents relate to a prior patent. After many years playing at the intersections of hardware and firmware and software, I know I couldn't. Yet our system empowers a bunch of non-EEs to decide matters on which billions hinge. Crazy. But what is a better system, letting experts onto the jury? Been there recently and how did that turn out?

IBM owned all those OS patents, and they expired. by emil · 2012-12-27 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

At least, in the opinion of Linux Torvalds.

Torvalds pointed out that basic operating system theory was more or less set by the late 1960s.
“IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents,” he explained. ”The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection.”

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by jkrise · 2012-12-27 03:39 · Score: 0

The BSD license and philosophy, I'm not sure you understand it...

I very well know that the BSD license is 'freer' and more permissive than the GPL, which was the motivation for Apple to steal BSD licensed code and close their additions to it. Totally antithetical to the BSD philosophy. But it would've been of educative value to lay people.They would understand how corporations are running away with the fruits of research work done by students, gratis... and patenting trivial additions, depriving the very same students of access to low cost products, because of these absurd patents. Corporates like Marvell and Apple would think 10 times before touching research projects, if the Universities take patents on students' research work.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....

In Pittsburgh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:00 · Score: 0

Doesn't having the court case in the university's hometown, where they have a hand in a lot of pockets, seem like a conflict of interest? Not that I don't expect an appeal anyway.

Interview with Marvell by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:03 · Score: 0

So that's why my interview with Marvell was suddenly canceled...

-CMU student

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by LordLimecat · 2012-12-27 04:39 · Score: 2

Im not sure its really possible to "steal" BSD code. Im no copyright lawyer, but if it were antithetical to the BSD philosophy, wouldnt the BSD license look a lot more like the GPL?

I think the BSD philosophy is essentially "heres some work we did, and anyone can do whatever they want with it."

Another (better?) article on Ars by BillX · 2012-12-27 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ars has another article; this one actually cites the patent numbers and specific claims found to be infringing.

Reading one of the claims, I can't imagine how a jury of Joe Sixpacks could possibly come to a rational conclusion on whether or not infringement occured. I'm an EE and it's gibberish to me without putting some significant Google-time in. Claim 4 of US6201389, for example:

"4. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:

selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and
applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant."

--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.

Re:Another (better?) article on Ars by Firethorn · 2012-12-27 05:26 · Score: 1

This sort of stuff is why I'm inclined to believe Marvell's claims that the earlier Seagate patents cover their devices, rendering the University's claims void.
Beside that, I'd tend to assign the value for the 'innovations' at around a dime to penny per device, making the 'value' of the infringement more in the low to mid millions.
Consider that a lot of HD's go for ~$40, and that the controller chip is only part of that system. Say $10. Given that the patents are for incremental improvements, that's like $.10 or less per chip.
Especially if they licensed the seagate patents, that would remove the 'willful' claim.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Another (better?) article on Ars by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 07:04 · Score: 0

The per unit valuation, which drove the $1.1B damages figure, is way too high and will be knocked down on appeal. If we use a more reasonable $0.05 / unit (as you suggest) then you probably get around $100MM in damages. IMO, The most likely outcome is that they will settle for around $100MM prior to the appeal decision.
Tangentially, Quinn is really getting their ass-kicked on these patent claims. Losing TWO >$1BB verdicts in 5 months?!? They should have advised settlement prior to trial.
Re:Another (better?) article on Ars by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 10:38 · Score: 0

You are absolutely correct. If this judgement is upheld it will open up pandoras box and give Universities/Colleges a "free option" to sue every tech firm on the planet. Whats the downside? Zero. Sure they can use their alumni to represent them either way. An absolute disgrace and another noose around the neck of innovation/entrepreneurialism. Sick

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:47 · Score: 0

I very well know that the BSD license is 'freer' and more permissive than the GPL, which was the motivation for Apple to steal BSD licensed code and close their additions to it.

Editorialize much?
FYI Microsoft was Apple's inspiration for using BSD code as they were doing it long before Apple thought about it.
And tell me again how using something the author explicitly gives you permission to use, change, and keep stealing?

Great.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

A U.S. University trying to put a U.S. Technology company out of business. Way to go guys. There aren't too many U.S. Technology companies left, and this is why.

We are putting ourselves out of business!

Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 07:12 · Score: 0

Universities are huge business these days, and will be until people realize it doesn't get them a job any more.
Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:02 · Score: 0

A pity, NASA got put out of business and private entities are not yet ready to prepare the B-Ark. It is much needed!
Re:Great.... by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-27 08:34 · Score: 1

Yeah, we wouldn't want our high tech graduates to get jobs from a high tech company after all. Here comes some more engineering grads making coffee at Starbucks!

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by jkrise · 2012-12-27 04:57 · Score: 0

And tell me again how using something the author explicitly gives you permission to use, change, and keep stealing?

It is stealing in the sense, Apple took away valuable stuff created by students at UC, Berkley without paying a cent for it, nor respecting the sentiment behind the creator's ideals.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....

Patent System Kills Innovation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:58 · Score: 0

I will not be releasing any of my inventions to the world...

The patent system is a joke.

Nice! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:02 · Score: 0

Maybe they will stop making lame super heroes movies.

WTF? I've been reading Marvell comics since 1968 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:09 · Score: 0

And now CMU claims they were the first to think of artificial wall climbing technology?

NASA vs. military spending -- orders of magnitude by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:10 · Score: 0

Anyone who calls NASA a pork project is willfully ignoring the REAL pork project -- the entire US Military budget, both open and 'black'.

NASA's budget has never been more than what, 1%? (I'm sure you can look it up if you're that concerned about NASA's wastefulness) of the US military budget. NASA could overrun all of its projects by 1000% year after year and never even make a dent wrt. US military expenditures, were it to actually have access to that kind of money.

Jury Nullification by drfuchs · 2012-12-27 05:25 · Score: 2

It's simply the jury's emotional response to the death of Peter Parker.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by The+Moof · 2012-12-27 05:25 · Score: 1

Im not sure its really possible to "steal" BSD code.

It sure is. You must leave the copyright notices and acknowledgement intact. In the event only a binary form is distributed, it must be present somewhere in the application/documentation (usually you find it buried in help documentation somewhere). Also, depending on the BSD license version, you also can't use the author/organization for marketing/endorsing/promotion without their permission.

Basically, the BSD licenses isn't so much dictating what can be done with the code, but to require giving credit to the programmer(s) who wrote the code. Well, besides the boilerplate "as-is" liability waiver in every license.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by fotoguzzi · 2012-12-27 05:34 · Score: 1

Is this statement in any way related to CMU's Mach kernel used by Apple for OS X? That is, maybe the poster is musing that if the BSDs were not BSD-licensed, CMU could not have made Mach, and the only Apples in existence would be Mac OS 9 computers in museums?

But wouldn't a better post be along the lines of: what if CMU could somehow renege on the Mach kernel? Where would Apple be, then?

--
Their they're doing there hair.

So the Google icon is for...? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:36 · Score: 0

Dupple writes with news carried by the BBC of a gigantic tech-patent case that (seemingly for once) doesn't involve Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, or Google:

But we're still going to use the Google icon for this story because, y'know, they've probably done SOME sort of evil, we don't know. They have ADVERTISEMENTS, for crying out loud! Evil! EEEEEEEVIL!!!

Re:So the Google icon is for...? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 09:31 · Score: 0

Because the submitter tagged it as Google. To know why he tagged it as Google, you have to read the original submission.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by hairyfeet · 2012-12-27 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Uhhh...kinda sad when the Windows guy understands licenses better than the FOSS zealots. First of all you CANNOT STEAL from BSD, the code is still there for all to use as they see fit, instead of sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to "share", second Apple has given back a hell of a lot more than they have taken out, such as CUPS and Webkit, again just as BSD intended.

Its actually quite simple, you want to lock something up in BSD land? Its not a problem but YOU are gonna be responsible for the fork you have just created, whereas if you CHOOSE to share your changes they can be incorporated into the mainline. Personally I find this to be much better that slitting the throat of the entire ecosystem because of the "blessed three" which is the only way to make money in Linux land. I of course am speaking of support, selling hardware, or the tin cup, which is why you don't see AAA games under FOSS or even a desktop that can compete with OSX, because too many niches aren't covered by the blessed three so you get half baked and poorly supported because there isn't any way to make money in all these areas not covered by the blessed three.

But am I the only one that finds it ironic as hell that when a FOSSie rails against BSD they sound almost exactly like the *.A.A copyright trolls? Its all about stealing and "protecting the rights",hell you could take any FOSSie railing against BSD and simply change a few words and you'd have a classic MPAA/RIAA rant, almost no effort required to switch between the two.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

simplicity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:51 · Score: 0

I can't imagine how a jury of Joe Sixpacks could possibly come to a rational conclusion on whether or not infringement occured. I'm an EE and it's gibberish to me

Easy, if an Electrical Engineer sees it as gibberish then it is non-obvious. The company's defense is that the patent was invalid. Since it is provable it is valid and their defense has failed to meet the burden of proof it was found to be infringing.

Re:simplicity by BillX · 2012-12-27 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not really; an EE will see it as gibberish because this is a software algorithm patent. The fact that someone outside of the relevant field can tell it is outside their field does not make it novel. For all I know, this is an obvious and everyday implementation as viewed by satellite communications, compression or similar folks (or hard drive seek algorithm designers), but not to any old engineer (let alone any old Joe Sixpack). Which is exactly my point - a jury of randoms trying to decide a field-specialized patent case are no better than a bag of dice.

--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Re:simplicity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 06:17 · Score: 0

Easy, if an Electrical Engineer sees it as gibberish then it is non-obvious.
Even if we were to take that at face value, it can still be non-obvious but not novel.
How should the jury determine if <gibberish in this patent> is sufficiently different from <gibberish in that patent>?

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by timmyf2371 · 2012-12-27 05:59 · Score: 1

The BSD license and philosophy, I'm not sure you understand it...

I very well know that the BSD license is 'freer' and more permissive than the GPL, which was the motivation for Apple to steal BSD licensed code and close their additions to it.

Maybe you could clarify how Apple "stole" this BSD-licensed code; did they take a hard drive or CD/DVD which contained the only copy of the code?

If you're actually accusing them of infringing on the copyright, then you should just have said so. Though from reading the BSD license, it appears that Apple is in compliance.

--

Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic

I'm never going to bother inventing anything by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 06:50 · Score: 0

It is just not worth the hassle.

How do they know that chip infringes patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 07:42 · Score: 0

Given that only Marvel has the internal schematics of their chips, how did CMU come to the conclusion that their patents were used?

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-27 07:48 · Score: 1

Or NeXT wouldn't have used FreeBSD as it's core to begin with, which means that Apple would have gone a different road for OS X, like BeOS which was also a contender.

However, the Regents of the University of California had a chance to do something that would foster innovation in the computer world for decades to come, properly recognized it, and created the BSD license. Let's be glad they did, rather than listen to people like you.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Jury? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:53 · Score: 0

Where in the heck are they finding a Jury full of people, competent to judge on this?

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 09:35 · Score: 0

without paying a cent for it, nor respecting the sentiment behind the creator's ideals.

You're training to replace RMS aren't you?

I knew something was fishy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 11:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you ever designed a board with Marvell chips? They require signing of an NDA by a manager before you can even look at the "personalized" watermarked datasheets. They are secretive with their products' technical data to the point of being weird. I guess now we know why.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by BitZtream · 2012-12-27 11:51 · Score: 1

Uhm ... the license states they need to give credit ... that was the creators ideals. They give credit as defined by the license. The creators have included with the code their ideals and they followed them as written. You claiming anything else just makes you a liar.

They didn't take anything away. They made a copy. The original students still have access to their original work.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by jythie · 2012-12-27 12:16 · Score: 1

If they had, I imagine all the software derived from that work simply would have been based off something else instead. No fall out, just alternative history.

Broken System by gspec · 2012-12-27 13:19 · Score: 1

How many jurors in that jury you think fully understand what the patents are and how they are applied to reward such big amount of money? Which one more likely: all of them or none of them? You would think it is necessary to understand the patent fully in order to make a right decision. Instead they probably made the decision based on what the lawyers said, and we know that all lawyers tell the truth right?

Yo, CMU.. how about a by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 13:37 · Score: 0

little refund for the constant tuition and fee increases over the years?

the tripled amount is valued at over $250k per student currently enrolled.... I WANT MY CUT !!

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 14:51 · Score: 0

Corporates like Marvell and Apple would think 10 times before touching research projects, if the Universities take patents on students' research work.

So... you just want to change who fucks over the 'student researcher?'

Veridct Won't stand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 16:44 · Score: 0

This case has holes you can drive a truck through.

First Judge Nora Barry Fischer HAD NEVER TRIED A PATENT CASE IN HER LIFE she was an experimental Judge no background at all in patent law or engineering.

Two claims one belonging to each ancient patent were supposedly infringed.

Marvel showed evidence of a dozen patents they owned which were used to design around these patents. It was documented in the patents.

Jury instructions were a total mess, and these will be found incompetent.

Marvel Counsel did a poor job but wasn't able to get past the bizarre method of calculating damages based on the theory of a client sales pitch showing semiconductor capability. It is beyond any comprehension how this Judge could allow this as a matter of law. Astonishing.

The appeal will start chopping this judgment down, though the experimental nature of the trial court may have the appellant court looking for an excuse for a new trial.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by fnj · 2012-12-27 19:18 · Score: 1

I see what you did there. You invented your own definition of "stealing". I guess you are free to do that, at the risk of clouding your communication, but the rest of us are likely to see it as a trifle eccentric.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by MrNiCeGUi · 2012-12-27 23:16 · Score: 2

While I agree with your opinion that the BSD license was respected, I have to point out that both CUPS and Webkit are not Apple creations.

CUPS was started in 1997 by Michael Sweet, was adopted by Apple in Mac OS X in 2002 and in 2007 Apple bought the CUPS source code.

Webkit is a fork of KHTML. KHTML started in 1998, was forked in 2001 by Apple into Webkit and Webkit itself was open sourced in 2005.

Apple did indeed give their contributions back to the community, but those projects are not Apple creations as a whole. Also, the fact that Apple has given back more than they have benefited is debatable, if those two examples are the only things that spring to mind.

CMU and University Patents by EmagGeek · 2012-12-28 01:43 · Score: 1

Anyone know if the inventions underpinning the patents were developed using taxpayer money? If so, that issue should be raised.

The taxpayer should NOT be funding patents that are turned around and used against the private sector.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 02:55 · Score: 0

I don't think you understand it either. the BSD license does not grant patent rights.

"Va banque" / "Vabank" by BarbambiaKirgudu · 2012-12-28 07:03 · Score: 1

comes to mind.

Re:UC, Berkley should've patented ideas in BSD Uni by hairyfeet · 2012-12-28 08:41 · Score: 1

Uhhh...where did I say that Apple owned either? I simply said they gave back with those two more than they have taken out by using the kernel, that's all. Just as AMD doesn't actually "own" the AMD FOSS driver but were paying several full time devs to work on it, thus giving back to the community.

The problem with the GPL in a nutshell is the redistribution clause, you could remove that tomorrow and the "printer story" would still be 100% solved while actually giving an incentive for companies to fix all the messes in Linux as they could make their money back. Instead because so much software doesn't fall into the "blessed three" model what you get is what I call the "busted shitter problem" in that if I ask you to paint me a picture or write a song? I'll have several free to choose from, some of them probably quite good. If I ask you to come fix my nasty busted shitter for free? i better get used to pissing in the sink.

Whether the "FOSSie faction" that thinks GPL is law accept it or not there are a LOT of jobs in software and OS development that are every bit as nasty as cleaning that busted shitter. there is bug and regression testing, QA, documentation, bug fixing, MSFT, Apple and Google pay millions to get these nasty jobs done, in Linux? they just don't get done at all which is why Linux doesn't gain any on the desktop. hell how many FOSS programs have placeholders instead of completed docs? and that is a hell of a lot less nasty and boring than QC and regression testing but because nobody can make a cent doing it then it simply don't get done.

I think the next 5 years will be interesting and if the GPL doesn't change in that time it will become more and more irrelevant outside the server room. Not only do you have the rise of the appstore, not only do you have Android taking jobs that formerly went to embedded Linux, but I would argue the days of the support contract, the bread and butter on which a LOT of FOSS depends to survive, is frankly over as more corps forgo contracts and just hire consultants for one off jobs or go to cloud based. Ironically I predict its the cloud that will end up seriously wounding if not killing Red hat, as last stats I saw had nearly 50% of the cloud servers running free CentOS over paid for RHEL and as the economy continues to sour I bet that number goes nowhere but up. If Linux didn't have the redistribution clause all those sales WOULD have been for RH, which gives more back to the community than the other top 5 corps combined, instead the redistribution clause will mean RH has to compete with their own product being given away free.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re:IBM owned all those OS patents, and they expire by lsatenstein · 2012-12-28 10:42 · Score: 1

At least, in the opinion of Linux Torvalds.

Torvalds pointed out that basic operating system theory was more or less set by the late 1960s.
“IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents,” he explained. ”The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection.”

===
When you are no longer hungry, and you just work to merge in GIT stuff, all developed by others, what is the outcome? I would say you become frustrated and angry, and lose it too often.

Whats wrong with pointing out human nature.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Slashdot Mirror

Jury Hits Marvell With $1 Billion+ Fine Over CMU Patents

167 comments