Although Intel's mighty proud of the Core 2 Duo, it looks like the chip wasn't all home-grown - a lawsuit filed today by the University of Wisconsin claims that the processor infringes on patented technology developed by one of its professors. Back in 1998, CS department chair Gurindar Sohi presented some of his developments relating to instruction level parallelism to Intel and offered to license them, but got nowhere - yet the same technology is in the Core 2 Duo, according to the lawsuit. For its part, Intel says it's been talking to the Badgers for over a year now, and that it hasn't evaluated the complaint - which it might want to do in short order, since the University is asking for the court to halt shipments of the Core 2 Duo in addition to monetary damages and legal fees.
News source: WARF News via Engadget
View: [PDF] Formal Complaint to Court
News source: WARF News via Engadget View: [PDF] Formal Complaint to Court
Although I think that halting all shipments is a tad over the top.
Um, that's not like this at all. If they tried to license this technology to Intel, and Intel refused but then turned around and used it anyway (aka stole) then the University has every right to sue them.
Um, that's not like this at all. If they tried to license this technology to Intel, and Intel refused but then turned around and used it anyway (aka stole) then the University has every right to sue them.
Well, if licensing doesn't work out, take action before a product becomes mainstream, not after it's already been out a couple years. There really needs to be a regulation in how long you can wait to take action for patent infringement.
Lawsuits should be a last resort. Say, after a couple of years of talking with no result.
Imagine if everyone just jumped to lawyers the very instant they feel they have been infringed (granted, some probably do). It would multiply the number of lawsuits!
Lawsuits should be a last resort. Say, after a couple of years of talking with no result.
Imagine if everyone just jumped to lawyers the very instant they feel they have been infringed (granted, some probably do). It would multiply the number of lawsuits!
Well, if negotiations aren't going anywhere after a year or more, I highly doubt they will go well any time longer. In fact, the longer negotiations drag out the more likely the offending party is to ignore the infringement altogether. In the end, these kinds of lawsuits only hurt the consumer. Whether it be for a pulled product, halted development, redevelopment, the consumer loses access to a product and will most likely pay the cost down the line if the company decides to redevelop without infringement or decide to license.
In this technological corporate world that's rapidly changing every year, patents are no longer about protecting ideas. They are for making money.
So, your vision of the way things work is "might makes right", and any large corporations should be able to disregard patents of the smaller individuals or organizations?
I guess that would reduce lawsuits, since the larger company would be free to always do as they please.
So, your vision of the way things work is "might makes right", and any large corporations should be able to disregard patents of the smaller individuals or organizations?
I guess that would reduce lawsuits, since the larger company would be free to always do as they please.
No, I'm not saying to let corporations do what they please. Just limit the freedom patent holders have to sue anyone that infringes it when most of them wait years for the company to be profitable to do so.
Take for instance the Dual Shock controller for PlayStation consoles. Whoever had the patent waited through the success of the PS1, and waited through the success of the PS2 before suing Sony. Because of that, all PS3 owners had to miss out on having a Dual Shock controller when purchasing the console. Now, anyone that wanted one had to wait over a year to get one (which was only just released in Japan recently) and spend extra money on a new controller. This was all because someone decided to wait for years to take action for a patent infringement.
So, like I said, most of these patent lawsuits only end up hurting the consumer in the end.
So, if a company can hide the infringement for over a year, maybe two, then they can get away with it and do as they please.
Um, that's not like this at all. If they tried to license this technology to Intel, and Intel refused but then turned around and used it anyway (aka stole) then the University has every right to sue them.
'IF' thats what happened then they can sue... but my guess is it's mainly like skyfrog said... "Some small company waits a few years for a product to become popular and profitable and then decides to sue for patent infringement."
cause my guess is they would not have sued if it where not for them getting rich off of it.
Um, that's not like this at all. If they tried to license this technology to Intel, and Intel refused but then turned around and used it anyway (aka stole) then the University has every right to sue them.
Well, if licensing doesn't work out, take action before a product becomes mainstream, not after it's already been out a couple years. There really needs to be a regulation in how long you can wait to take action for patent infringement.
It takes months if not years to build a case that is substantial enough for a lawyer to even look at. It will come down to how well written the patent is and how badly Intel infringed it.
Must research
Seeing huge returns
Thats from the WARF article on the issue. If Intel is infringing then it's the University's responsibility to back up their own people and inventions. I was actually thinking about buying my first Intel processor, I've been with AMD for a decade now. I'm going to have to see how this pans out before I make a decision. I don't want to support a company that knowingly steals from a learning institution.
Thats from the WARF article on the issue. If Intel is infringing then it's the University's responsibility to back up their own people and inventions. I was actually thinking about buying my first Intel processor, I've been with AMD for a decade now. I'm going to have to see how this pans out before I make a decision. I don't want to support a company that knowingly steals from a learning institution.
but you have no problem supporting a company who's product is based on reverse engineering the competition?
The license deal was two way though so Intel effectively got everything AMD developed for free up to a a point. so intel took AMD's A64 architecture, renamed it and claimedit was their own. And tey even left out part of the instruction set, even if it was one that wasn't that usefull to regular home users.
Why did it take that long for the university to wake-up?
Stupid, greed, in need of easy money.
Don't let reading the article interfere with pre-held opinions!
all you doubters would be LIVID if it were you. you'd be posting threads here, there and everywhere. And our advice would be to open negotiations and if they failed then to take legal action. Which is exactly what the university did.
Also, Intel are not crazy or evil, perhaps they didn't respond to these guys because they don't think this patent is relevant, and it can't hold up in court. Also, considering the minor importance of this, not a feature, but an enhancement - at worst Intel would deserve a small royalty charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_prediction
If it is, it has been around a bit longer in not only Intels processors...
(even before the patent was filed)
And a big lol at the first poster, calling this university a 'small company'...
-Spenser
It's always about MONEY.
It's always about MONEY.
Well of course, but if the people at this university are the ones who did the research that created the means to make the money, why shouldn't they get any of it.
It's not all about the money though. Like I said, this University isn't desparate for money. Unless you also attend here, I think I'll be the one we're listening to as I do have a vested interest in how well the school is doing financially and otherwise and do tend to keep tabs as best I can.
-Spenser
It's always about MONEY.
Huh sounds like intel always about money , you sell amd chips and we'll charge you double no discounts for you. ha ha ha . Boy their getting it from both ends when you try to rip off patents and try to shut out the competition it'll come back to bite ya good for them.
And a Computer Science department is sueing a company that is EE/MatE based...
I don't know. I can't speak for them.
Right now they are freezing all state hiring [good thing to do during a ression, NOT ]. News this morning said the state will be in debt over $400 million on the low esitmate and well over 3 billion by most others. Time to move.
The difference is that the company in question was "pitched" the idea, which they rejected. Then, later, they took that very pitch and made a profit on it for themselves. It's not like this was a simultaneous development of the same idea; they were shown the idea, rejected it to the guy's face, then used it later and tried to pass it off as their own.
THAT is exactly what the patent laws are FOR. This one is legitimate, as opposed to the companies that buy flimsy patents that easily *are* simultaneously developed then sue people for infringing on it.
I hope AMD won;t stop shipping dual core CPUs too because of this.
altough I currently have 3 boxes with AMD FX62 Dual core processors. they cannot take those away from me. hehe
I hope AMD won;t stop shipping dual core CPUs too because of this.
altough I currently have 3 boxes with AMD FX62 Dual core processors. they cannot take those away from me. hehe
Bear in mind that AMD's technology of dual core CPUs works in a quite different manner than Intel's, plus the UW guys didn't pitch AMD, they pitched Intel.
So AMD chips are no doubt safe, but this could do terrible things for Intel's market share.
Remember this might well also affect the Quad CPUs since Intel's are simply 2 Core Duo's on one die hence the Core 2 Quad is merely a variant of the Core 2 Duo tech.
Its not like they benefit much by halting the shipments.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.