...something that was not obvious from prior art. Hence the Wisconsin patents would be invalid if they came later and were not radically different to the methods implemented by Motorolam.
I wish the obviousness standard mattered, but that ship sailed long ago. There are patents for software features on mobile devices that are just straight imports of the same feature from desktop devices. Drug companies sometimes win renewed patent cover by changing their dosages so marginally that it makes no biological difference.
The patent sounds like basic functions for out of order execution, and I have to believe that just about every modern microprocessor would implement this same thing. Can someone knowledgable with this issue comment? Is this a widely recognized patent that Apple just won't license but Intel/AMD/ARM/Qualcomm/et al have?
Intel was sued for infringement and settled on licensing for that exact patent 4 years ago. The others I listed were also sued and eventually licensed University IP involving processors but whether they took a license to the '752 patent along with other patents applicable to processor design I don't know. I would assume they would rather than litigate each processor patent individually, but it's only a guess.
The others were sued involving a procedure to actually manufacture the chips (it had to do with metals leeching into silicon during manufacture). And that procedure is applied to any type of chip, not just for processors.
Samsung wouldn't license the '752 patent since Samsung doesn't design any processor that advanced. Their mobile processors are all ARM designs and their smaller processors (as used in simpler devices like appliances) don't have a need for advanced prediction of instructions. If the ARM A57 infringes this patent, then WARF should be suing ARM, not Samsung. Samsung doesn't have anything to worry about until they actually come out with their own processor (which they claim they are working on, but who knows if/when it'll happen).
Intel finally took a license in 2009 for their Core 2 Duo processors even though WARF was after them from as far back as 2001 over the '752 patent. What's interesting is why WARF never pursued Intel in court over earlier processors and the settlement only started with Core 2 Duo, even though they started discussions with Intel long before Core 2 Duo was even on any roadmap (it was announced in 2006). Most likely is Intel didn't infringe with earlier processor designs, but did with their latest processor.
Apple might also infringe, but the fact they mentioned the '752 patent in their own patents suggests to me their system is different. Apple also listed the Neonode N1m phone in their slide-to-unlock patent as a reference, presumably to show how their system was different. There's no reason to show previous patents except to point out differences between theirs and yours so that someone couldn't come along later and claim you infringe. By listing another patent as a reference you're showing the USPTO you're well aware of similar patents, and you're providing them with a reference so they can also do their own comparisons.
Universities regularly profit by licensing technologies their employees created. I think Stanford alone must get a significant part of their money this way. I know UW is a public institution, but they also receive private grants for research so it's not so clear cut. I agree in principle that research should be publicly available for no cost, but it is what it is.
Most universities technically are non-profits, but all major research universities have technology transfer programs where they apply for and license patents based on university research. Just as an example, the page rank system that Google uses for its search engine is licensed from a patent that Stanford holds, based on work that Brin and Page did as Stanford graduate students. Google just happens to have an exclusive license.
University funding to ? increase, Lawyer funding definitely to increase, potential increase to retail for the rest of use, innovation potential victim. There really needs to be some limitations on the longevity of patent monopoly.
Wait, Apple doesn't design their processors. They only use ARM designs that Samsung makes for them. How come Apple is getting sued over something they didn't create? /S
Starting with the A6, Apple began licensing the ARM architecture (ARMv7/v8) instead of just the processor license (A9, A15 etc.). This is why Apple like Qualcomm designed its own core: Swift in the A6 and Cyclone in the A7 (and Krait for Qualcomm).
Universities regularly profit by licensing technologies their employees created. I think Stanford alone must get a significant part of their money this way. I know UW is a public institution, but they also receive private grants for research so it's not so clear cut. I agree in principle that research should be publicly available for no cost, but it is what it is.
Research done with public funds by all means should be public. This is perhaps one of the most idiotic examples of our government basically screwing over the very people they are suppose to represent. It is what it is because we really have lost control of our government which no longer is engaged in working in the best interest of its people. That can be changed though.
However that is not to say that privately funded research should be open to to the public. There has to be a clear line and a bit of honesty here.
This. The entire point of a university is to disseminate information, not to patent it and withhold it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch
a publicly funded university which ostensibly used public monies to develop a technology. seems like it ought to be available to anyone to use ...
This isn't really true. Ideally the money would be used to help fund the university. If universities were properly compensated for all research, they could use that to be less dependent on public funding or subsidize tuition costs. In either case it would mean less dependence on public funding, which would be a far more efficient mechanic than providing a free R&D department to corporate entities.
If they truly invented the technology it is ultimately up to them how they will benefit from it. This idea that you have to manufacture what you invent yourself is just asinine.
For one thing many inventors simply don't have the resources to build a business around. Using your logic an inventor should loose any potential profits if he is to poor to proceed with product development and launch. I hope you really don't believe that.
Second; the more people you can license a technology to, the more wide spread its use and adoption. If you are inventor that wants to benefit from you endeavors and see your invention widely used you have no choice but to license that technology.
Once again, the whole damn system of copyrights and patents needs to be utterly wiped away and started over from scratch. There's zero invention any more because everything has been patented,
That is complete garbage! There has been more invention, R&D and so forth in the last couple of decades than in the entire history of mankind.
including things no one actually invented, and the few entities actually utilizing the ideas are sued by everyone who claims to have patented the ideas... And half of the filings are duplications of other ideas already filed and so much of it doesn't even make sense to patent. And copyright is way too long (thank Disney).
Copyright and patents are two completely different things, I hope you realize that. However I completely agree with you that copyrights last way too long. By the way it wasn't just Disney that was the problem here, significant blame should be directed at the EU.
But so long as the lawyers are making millions in this business, it's not going to change. The only people benefitting from patent law these days are the wealthy, not the small inventor.
Again that is BS. The patent system is the only protection a small time inventory has.
Interesting. Would this apply to Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and other licensees of ARM, or do they either not use the technology or have licenses? So far, the mainstream press hasn't picked up on this, so there's not much analysis out there.
We don't even know if this is ARM technology or PA Semi technology. In fact there is so little info on the A7 out in the wild that I don't even know how the UW can even suggest that Apple has infringed here. Just because Apple has patented like technology doesn't even mean that they are using it in the A7. It will be interesting to find out how the UW has determined that Apple has infringed.
Research done with public funds by all means should be public. This is perhaps one of the most idiotic examples of our government basically screwing over the very people they are suppose to represent. It is what it is because we really have lost control of our government which no longer is engaged in working in the best interest of its people. That can be changed though.
However that is not to say that privately funded research should be open to to the public. There has to be a clear line and a bit of honesty here.
The line gets a little blurry with this path. I could then argue that any product made by a private entity based on public research should be made available to the public free of charge since the public originally paid for the research.
This is the likely issue. There is so little published about A7 that you have to wonder if the university is making an assumption here.
Aren't you the one making an assumption here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Honestly how would they know without some published information about the chip. It isn't like Apple attends Hot Chips and brags about their latest accomplishments.
Honestly how would you know what due diligence Wisconsin has done? It isn't like they went to your local bar and bragged about suing Apple for no good reason.
There has been more invention, R&D and so forth in the last couple of decades than in the entire history of mankind.
And probably also more patent litigation than in the entire history of mankind. Who knows whether we would have had more innovation or less in the past twenty years without our current patent system?
Scrapping the whole thing is madness, though. Some level of protection matters, but whether the system we have is the best of all possible worlds is hardly obvious.
Honestly how would you know what due diligence Wisconsin has done? It isn't like they went to your local bar and bragged about suing Apple for no good reason.
Indeed. It could also be that Wisconsin feels that it doesn't have enough information to assess whether its patent has been used and is using the discovery process to find out. Companies aren't allowed to just clam up and make the claimant figure it out; maybe Wisconsin feels that Apple has done that. They're entitled to legal process, but if they've overreached a judge will tell them.
We don't even know if this is ARM technology or PA Semi technology. In fact there is so little info on the A7 out in the wild that I don't even know how the UW can even suggest that Apple has infringed here. Just because Apple has patented like technology doesn't even mean that they are using it in the A7. It will be interesting to find out how the UW has determined that Apple has infringed.
This is what I am interested in as well. How is it that UW is certain the A7 infringed but not the A6? Can the A7 be reverse engineered to figure out how it works? Does UW have the technology to do that?
Even if they did get that far, how did they determine that the implementation is the same?
I admit I don't have the patience to read up the patents, but I'm looking forward to the discussions here.
This is what I am interested in as well. How is it that UW is certain the A7 infringed but not the A6? Can the A7 be reverse engineered to figure out how it works? Does UW have the technology to do that?
Even if they did get that far, how did they determine that the implementation is the same?
I admit I don't have the patience to read up the patents, but I'm looking forward to the discussions here.
Well Patently Apple has their own article and a link to the patent. You can look at that if you like. They probably think they have a strong case if they're willing to take on Apple. I don't know whether that is really the case. I personally wish universities were primarily funded through the sale and licensing of successful research and thus less dependent on public funding and tuition. It's not always possible to monetize it though.
I wish the obviousness standard mattered, but that ship sailed long ago. There are patents for software features on mobile devices that are just straight imports of the same feature from desktop devices. Drug companies sometimes win renewed patent cover by changing their dosages so marginally that it makes no biological difference.
I wish someone would tell our IP advisor it doesn't in that case! I have to convince them I am doing something not obvious if I want to propose a patent. The caveat is I'm in the uk and work for a Government funded university! I guess that's the difference in the UK our universities cannot afford drawn out patent wars with strong grounds. That is not always obvious in bioscience. Btw drug companies frequently not only patent the drug in question but copyright the pills design as that lady's longer and distinguishes their drug from generics
Comments
...something that was not obvious from prior art. Hence the Wisconsin patents would be invalid if they came later and were not radically different to the methods implemented by Motorolam.
I wish the obviousness standard mattered, but that ship sailed long ago. There are patents for software features on mobile devices that are just straight imports of the same feature from desktop devices. Drug companies sometimes win renewed patent cover by changing their dosages so marginally that it makes no biological difference.
Intel was sued for infringement and settled on licensing for that exact patent 4 years ago. The others I listed were also sued and eventually licensed University IP involving processors but whether they took a license to the '752 patent along with other patents applicable to processor design I don't know. I would assume they would rather than litigate each processor patent individually, but it's only a guess.
The others were sued involving a procedure to actually manufacture the chips (it had to do with metals leeching into silicon during manufacture). And that procedure is applied to any type of chip, not just for processors.
Samsung wouldn't license the '752 patent since Samsung doesn't design any processor that advanced. Their mobile processors are all ARM designs and their smaller processors (as used in simpler devices like appliances) don't have a need for advanced prediction of instructions. If the ARM A57 infringes this patent, then WARF should be suing ARM, not Samsung. Samsung doesn't have anything to worry about until they actually come out with their own processor (which they claim they are working on, but who knows if/when it'll happen).
Intel finally took a license in 2009 for their Core 2 Duo processors even though WARF was after them from as far back as 2001 over the '752 patent. What's interesting is why WARF never pursued Intel in court over earlier processors and the settlement only started with Core 2 Duo, even though they started discussions with Intel long before Core 2 Duo was even on any roadmap (it was announced in 2006). Most likely is Intel didn't infringe with earlier processor designs, but did with their latest processor.
Apple might also infringe, but the fact they mentioned the '752 patent in their own patents suggests to me their system is different. Apple also listed the Neonode N1m phone in their slide-to-unlock patent as a reference, presumably to show how their system was different. There's no reason to show previous patents except to point out differences between theirs and yours so that someone couldn't come along later and claim you infringe. By listing another patent as a reference you're showing the USPTO you're well aware of similar patents, and you're providing them with a reference so they can also do their own comparisons.
This. The entire point of a university is to disseminate information, not to patent it and withhold it.
No!
The two responsibilities of universities: research and teaching!
Universities regularly profit by licensing technologies their employees created. I think Stanford alone must get a significant part of their money this way. I know UW is a public institution, but they also receive private grants for research so it's not so clear cut. I agree in principle that research should be publicly available for no cost, but it is what it is.
Most universities technically are non-profits, but all major research universities have technology transfer programs where they apply for and license patents based on university research. Just as an example, the page rank system that Google uses for its search engine is licensed from a patent that Stanford holds, based on work that Brin and Page did as Stanford graduate students. Google just happens to have an exclusive license.
Starting with the A6, Apple began licensing the ARM architecture (ARMv7/v8) instead of just the processor license (A9, A15 etc.). This is why Apple like Qualcomm designed its own core: Swift in the A6 and Cyclone in the A7 (and Krait for Qualcomm).
Research done with public funds by all means should be public. This is perhaps one of the most idiotic examples of our government basically screwing over the very people they are suppose to represent. It is what it is because we really have lost control of our government which no longer is engaged in working in the best interest of its people. That can be changed though.
However that is not to say that privately funded research should be open to to the public. There has to be a clear line and a bit of honesty here.
This. The entire point of a university is to disseminate information, not to patent it and withhold it.
a publicly funded university which ostensibly used public monies to develop a technology. seems like it ought to be available to anyone to use ...
This isn't really true. Ideally the money would be used to help fund the university. If universities were properly compensated for all research, they could use that to be less dependent on public funding or subsidize tuition costs. In either case it would mean less dependence on public funding, which would be a far more efficient mechanic than providing a free R&D department to corporate entities.
Let's get to the point ....
If they truly invented the technology it is ultimately up to them how they will benefit from it. This idea that you have to manufacture what you invent yourself is just asinine.
For one thing many inventors simply don't have the resources to build a business around. Using your logic an inventor should loose any potential profits if he is to poor to proceed with product development and launch. I hope you really don't believe that.
Second; the more people you can license a technology to, the more wide spread its use and adoption. If you are inventor that wants to benefit from you endeavors and see your invention widely used you have no choice but to license that technology. That is complete garbage! There has been more invention, R&D and so forth in the last couple of decades than in the entire history of mankind. Copyright and patents are two completely different things, I hope you realize that. However I completely agree with you that copyrights last way too long. By the way it wasn't just Disney that was the problem here, significant blame should be directed at the EU.
Again that is BS. The patent system is the only protection a small time inventory has.
We don't even know if this is ARM technology or PA Semi technology. In fact there is so little info on the A7 out in the wild that I don't even know how the UW can even suggest that Apple has infringed here. Just because Apple has patented like technology doesn't even mean that they are using it in the A7. It will be interesting to find out how the UW has determined that Apple has infringed.
Research done with public funds by all means should be public. This is perhaps one of the most idiotic examples of our government basically screwing over the very people they are suppose to represent. It is what it is because we really have lost control of our government which no longer is engaged in working in the best interest of its people. That can be changed though.
However that is not to say that privately funded research should be open to to the public. There has to be a clear line and a bit of honesty here.
The line gets a little blurry with this path. I could then argue that any product made by a private entity based on public research should be made available to the public free of charge since the public originally paid for the research.
This is the likely issue. There is so little published about A7 that you have to wonder if the university is making an assumption here.
Aren't you the one making an assumption here?
Honestly how would you know what due diligence Wisconsin has done? It isn't like they went to your local bar and bragged about suing Apple for no good reason.
There has been more invention, R&D and so forth in the last couple of decades than in the entire history of mankind.
And probably also more patent litigation than in the entire history of mankind. Who knows whether we would have had more innovation or less in the past twenty years without our current patent system?
Scrapping the whole thing is madness, though. Some level of protection matters, but whether the system we have is the best of all possible worlds is hardly obvious.
Aren't you the one making an assumption here?
Honestly how would you know what due diligence Wisconsin has done? It isn't like they went to your local bar and bragged about suing Apple for no good reason.
Indeed. It could also be that Wisconsin feels that it doesn't have enough information to assess whether its patent has been used and is using the discovery process to find out. Companies aren't allowed to just clam up and make the claimant figure it out; maybe Wisconsin feels that Apple has done that. They're entitled to legal process, but if they've overreached a judge will tell them.
This week: "Apple sued by University of Wisconsin over A7 chip at heart of iPhone, iPad..."
Next week: "Apple purchases University of Wisconsin, returns land to the cows..."
We don't even know if this is ARM technology or PA Semi technology. In fact there is so little info on the A7 out in the wild that I don't even know how the UW can even suggest that Apple has infringed here. Just because Apple has patented like technology doesn't even mean that they are using it in the A7. It will be interesting to find out how the UW has determined that Apple has infringed.
This is what I am interested in as well. How is it that UW is certain the A7 infringed but not the A6? Can the A7 be reverse engineered to figure out how it works? Does UW have the technology to do that?
Even if they did get that far, how did they determine that the implementation is the same?
I admit I don't have the patience to read up the patents, but I'm looking forward to the discussions here.
This is what I am interested in as well. How is it that UW is certain the A7 infringed but not the A6? Can the A7 be reverse engineered to figure out how it works? Does UW have the technology to do that?
Even if they did get that far, how did they determine that the implementation is the same?
I admit I don't have the patience to read up the patents, but I'm looking forward to the discussions here.
Well Patently Apple has their own article and a link to the patent. You can look at that if you like. They probably think they have a strong case if they're willing to take on Apple. I don't know whether that is really the case. I personally wish universities were primarily funded through the sale and licensing of successful research and thus less dependent on public funding and tuition. It's not always possible to monetize it though.