Slashdot Mirror


80-Year-Old Inventor Gil Hyatt Says Patent Office is Waiting For Him To Die (venturebeat.com)

Dean Takahashi, reporting for VentureBeat: Gil Hyatt has gotten many rewards from his days as an inventor. In 1990, he received a fundamental but controversial patent on what he called the first microprocessor, or computer on a chip. It was 22 years late, but he nosed out rivals such as Intel in being the first to file for a patent application in 1968. He then licensed that patent and 22 of his 69 other patents to Philips Electronics, which then began enforcing them on the rest of the electronics industry and collecting royalties.

Philips' efforts netted Hyatt more than $150 million, though the state of California would try for 24 years to take a big chunk of that money for taxes. It argued that Hyatt pretended to move to Las Vegas in 1991, but in 2017, he finally prevailed in convincing the tax board that he really did move. But at 80 years old, Hyatt still isn't resting on the rewards he got. In fact, he's still in a bitter battle with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He claims the office is sitting on his remaining applications, and is waiting for him to die. Hyatt sued to get the patent office to issue his remaining patent applications. The patent office declined to comment, citing the litigation.
Further reading: Gil Hyatt interview: Why patent examiners gave controversial patents a scarlet letter.

21 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. why are they calling him that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are they calling him an inventor? Just because he got patents that automatically means he is one? It's clear he scammed a broken system (well, it works as it's designed actually, but broken for humanity as a whole in the sense that we all get fucked by it)

    1. Re:why are they calling him that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's for legal reasons. Turns out that "Patent Troll" is a Trademark of "International Patent Troll Consortium".

    2. Re:why are they calling him that? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Patent sugestions: updating your patent application should not reset the clock on patent duration. For a machine patent you should need to submit a working prototype. Anyone sued for patent infringement should be able to challenge the validity and scope of the patent. Your patent application should require sufficient detail to allow building it. For software patents you should need to submit source code and essential details on compiling it. Copyright should only cover artwork and books, not software. Failure to actually use a patent should preclude any damages for patent violations.

  2. Reads more like an early patent troll? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should be use em or lose em.

    1. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

      You're confusing patents with copyright.

      That's not so say copyright is not insanely broken, but we are discussing patents, which (correct me if I'm wrong) currently stand at a reasonable 20 years, and actually do benefit both the creator, as well as society as a whole. It's one of the few ways left for a smart person to break into big money by being smart, solving problems, and working the system.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    2. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by james_gnz · · Score: 2

      AFAIK, patents on chemical and pharmaceutical do bring a net benefit to society, but other patents don't.

      Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J. (2008) Patent Failure. Princeton University Press.

  3. Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 1990, he received a fundamental but controversial patent on what he called the first microprocessor, or computer on a chip. It was 22 years late

    First "on a computer" patent troll.

    So the first MCU that used an instruction set, but made from individual transistors, was made in 1953. Vacuum tubes that worked as transistors were older yet.

    The first integrated circuit that was designed to act as a transistor was built in 1956 and the design for it was a couple years before that.

    Gil Hyatt filed in 1968, over a decade before each and every component of his invention was already invented and put together using the same IC structure his patent described.

    The reason Fairchild and Intel fought so hard was in essence because *at best* Gil Hyatt invented the second MCU instruction set to ever exist, but fairchilds was the third and Intel was the forth.

    If Gil deserves a patent on an existing design that only differs in the instruction set, then neither fairchild or intels also-different instruction set should be covered by the same patent.
    If Gil's covers all future instruction sets to ever be invented, then being the second inventor he should lose his patent to Geoffrey Dummer instead.

    This guy is a patent troll who's only real "first" was to file the original "an existing thing, on my computer" patent.

    1. Re:Controversy by Xnet+Project · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is another interesting side note from a court case:

      https://www.boe.ca.gov/meeting...

    2. Re:Controversy by jd · · Score: 2

      Surely it should be to Tom Kilburn or F.C. (Freddie) Williams, as the Manchester SSEM had the first true instruction set.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Controversy by anegg · · Score: 2

      Just geezing here...

      I moved to California in early 1991 from a state with no income tax (on earned income). I filed my federal taxes for tax year 1990 in April of 1991, using my California address as my current address. The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) "made a determination" that I had been a California resident for the tax year 1990 on the basis of the address I used when I filed my federal taxes for tax year 1990. I protested that I had not been a California resident in 1990, and that they did not have evidence to the contrary. The FTB insisted that I prove I was not a California resident in 1990. I (foolishly perhaps) insisted that I didn't need to prove I wasn't a resident (I knew I didn't have a state tax return for another state for tax year 1990), they needed to prove I was a resident. They garnished my wages. After losing about $1,000 to them through wage garnishment, I did something (I forget what) to prove I wasn't a California resident. I never got my $1,000 back. The FTB claimed that they had passed it on to the federal government; the federal government claimed that they knew nothing about it.

      I can't speak to the merits of the patent issues, but I offer this (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that the California Franchise Tax Board are not nice people.

      Another anecdote - Although I could not find online evidence, I recall that back in the 1990s California was making a case for being able to tax 401(k) distributions to individuals who were not residents of California at the time of the distribution, but who had been residents at the time of the original income deferral. This line of thinking did not prevail - imagine the chaos if it had. Would you have to determine what percentage of a distribution came from what income? What about investment gains from the original deferral before you moved/after you moved?

  4. Not sure which is worse... by bblb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's worse... calling a patent troll, however successful he was, an "inventor"... or that California spent two and half decades trying to extort that patent troll for money.

    1. Re:Not sure which is worse... by Xnet+Project · · Score: 2

      It would be curious to see if there is an heir to said patents regardless of original creation or "patent-obtained" technologies going forward. In the end a last Will and Testament could throw a wrench into the proverbial wait for the patents to shift ownership in their entirety.

    2. Re:Not sure which is worse... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      California is one of a small handful of states that put more money in Federal coffers than it takes out (Texas is the only red state in that category). It may make you feel a very big person to make fun of California, but more than likely it's true that wherever you live in the US, California could buy your state. Whatever it's problems, it is one of the major economic engines not just of the United States, but of the entire world.

      Before you start mocking the size of your neighbor's penis, you should probably take a good hard long long in the mirror at your own.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. California FTB is like that... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    California Franchise Tax Board (California's version of the IRS) is like that.. My wife and I bought a house in Las Vegas in 1994, and she moved into the house then and went to work for a local hospital. I got a tiny studio apartment near work in San Diego, as I had a job I liked and there was a rumor going around that there were going to be layoffs in the near future and I'd hoped to get laid off vs quiting. The wait for the layoffs wound up being close to 2 years, so I did quite a bit of flying up to Las Vegas over the weekend for that time. The layoffs finally happened in Dec 1995, and I was laid off. I moved my stuff up to Las Vegas and got unemployment. During the nearly two years I was still working in San Diego, I filed state income tax returns showing my California wages but did NOT show wife's Nevada wages. To make a long story short, I had to pay a tax attorney quite a bit AND nearly two years to convince the FTB that Nevada wages were NOT taxable by California, even though I had California wages. The CalFTB can FUCK OFF.. Soooo damn glad we escaped that nuthouse...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    1. Re:California FTB is like that... by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Michigan taxed me for wages I made in California, even though I moved out of the wolverine state two years prior. This happens a lot and has little to do with the pulsing horror that is California's bureaucracy and more to do with how individuals files their taxes. You really have to dot your "i"'s and cross your "t"'s to keep the tax man off your back.

      It's a very common trick for people in Bay Area to retire to Reno-Tahoe and cash out their stock to avoid a lot of taxes. The Franchise Tax Board is wise to this one and sometimes will try their best to extract everything they can before they leave. People make think that their money is theirs, but they earned it in California and probably owe taxes on it. That they can leave without paying taxes is more of a loop hole than a right, and you can expect many states to not be very nice about it.

      I'd much rather it were explicitly dealt with in federal regulations so that we can deal with it fairly, like a 50/50 split between old and new state. Rather than states like California chasing people for decades on seemingly minor issues as sort of an intimidation policy against tax cheats (the FTB secretly views you as a tax cheat)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  6. Me Too! by kackle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He claims the office is sitting on his remaining applications, and is waiting for him to die.

    Me too; and I'm only 50!

  7. They're not waiting for him to die by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is just a rich guy evading taxes. The "Snowbirds" in Arizona & Florida who live there 6.5 months out of the year do the same damn thing.

    As someone who lives in one state and pays every dime of taxes owed with zero deductions (stopped getting those when my kid turned 17.5) screw this noise. Enjoy civilization? Pay your dues like everyone else.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. It's when they're dying that they attack. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tired of companies inventing something great, then they stop innovating and instead sink all their money into lawyers and sue sue sue. Die Die Die.

    Actually, it's when they're dying that they sue, sue, sue.

    When a tech company is doing well, their money is better spent innovating and staying ahead of the pack. When they're getting behind, it's still better spent on getting ahead.

    During this period patent portflios are mostly used defensively against other company's suits. Find some patents in the portfolio the other guys can be accused of infringing and counter-sue. Then settle for a cross-licensing agreement, and maybe a true-up payment if one side has a bigger pile of relevant patents.

    But when they're dying, they're desperate. That's when they go through their portfolio and sue anybody they might be able to make money from.

    (Been there, dealt with that: Northern Telecom was on the ropes. They'd been a big player in the design of SONNET and had a lot of patents on it. So they went after anybody with patents that looked like they were doing something SONNET-related that might infringe on one of theirs. So I and my co-architect got to spend a few weeks writing, for our lawyers, a set of analyses of why each of several NT patents didn't cover the stuff in our patents, or other chunks of the chips we'd designed that looked like they just MUST have an infringing component. B-b )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  9. Maybe? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's time Gil

  10. Yes by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    I'm deeply opposed to regressive taxation. Meaning taxes that target the working class, especially the working poor. The "Netflix Tax" was a great example of this, as are soda taxes, sales tax and many Vehicle License Taxes. I favor progressive taxation. Meaning the larger benefit a person receives from society the more they pay for it's upkeep and improvement. I'm a Democratic Socialist after all.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  11. Progressive taxes are those by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    that disproportionately apply to the wealthy. That was implied by context. The wealthy receive the greatest benefit from society and therefor must pay a larger share of it's upkeep. Civilization is like a club you join and pay dues for. Taxes are those dues. If the people who use the club the most don't pay their dues the club goes to ruin.

    America had it's best years when the top marginal tax rage (income over $12 million/year adjusted for inflation) was 90%. Things started going downhill when Reagan slashed taxes and restructured corporate taxes to make pump and dump style stock buy backs a thing. Clinton accelerated this trend but the .com boom and later the housing boom hid the damage.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/