http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/ Engadget Comments for Patent troll going after AMD for infringement http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/I invent lots of technology all of the time. I never file for patents, and I couldn't careless about them. It's more or less software occasional hardware, but it's still intellectual property. If someone thinks they can take what i've done and do it better, all the power to them. That's what progress is all about. If we were more interested in progress than we are who gets what or whatever, then we would have cured cancer years ago. The whole patent system is a dead weight.

Money should come into the picture when the consumer goes to buy a product. If they see your product sitting next to someone who copied your product, but your product is still better in xxx respects to the other product, which are they going to choose?

In my mind its the same thing as being forced to use one cable or telephone company simply because they have a contract which says they're the sole provider of land lines or connections for a single area. Monopolies are never good for humanity as a whole. How many people here (above commentors) think the telephone and cable networks should be opened up for any company to use? Imagine a world where you had the choice of roadrunner, comcast, insight, a dozen dsl providers, etc.

Competition = good.

tesla had almost every invention of his stolen and died a poor man. If he was still alive, and patents held that long there would be not a damn thing you could use in your entire house, or office that would have not had to pay an IP fee to him. But if you notice, all he cared about was inventing. Creating new things and discoveries, then sharing them with the planet.

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html

Otis Pond, an engineer then working for Tesla, said, "Looks as if Marconi got the jump on you." Tesla replied, "Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents."

Of course things went bad after Marconi started caring about the fame and fortune. But, Maybe we should all just step back and learn something from tesla about why we're here and what the point of life and humanity is. Can't we all just be civil and treat each other fairly? Unless of course you believe the point of life is to gain as much wealth and control over your fellow humans as possible. In which case I would direct you to the nearest cliff you can jump off of.






]]>Nov 18th 2009 8:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/intel would sue them *bg*
like a recent german dvd-board *ghee*
those moneyhungry manager suck!]]>Nov 17th 2006 3:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
But you see the patent process is long and expensive, and regardless of what you think, they did indeed "DO" something. Simply because they don't have millions to move on it 'at this time' does not mean that anyone can come along and utilize the patented work without permission/licensing.

When will people get it through their thick skulls, that patents were designed to protect the individual inventor... and they are doing a fine job, it is the abuse of that intellectual property that ruins it for the small time inventor and like those who keep bringing up the 'laser cat toy' invention, you don't know what you are talking about.

Invent something, patent it, and then do nothing as another company makes millions or billions off of your innovation... then come back and let us know how the Federation of Planets would have done things differently.]]>Nov 17th 2006 2:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
Funniest thing I heard today.]]>Nov 17th 2006 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
Patents are (for current circumstances, poorly) designed as a disclosure for exclusivity bargain, to statistically accelerate diffusion of new technical ideas in exchange for granting mini-monopolies for a limited time.

A secondary, but related, reason that drug companies like to blather about is to encourage risky research that pays off only once in a while. This of course does not make much sense, as drug exclusivity is overpowered and needs to be nerfed - specifically in the direction of encouraging investment in less-common, horrible diseases rather and away from 15 types of Viagra. In any case, it is a variation of the exclusivity for accelerated technological progress.

The incentive system does not give a crap whether the inventor is an individual or a team or otherwise, or whether the party that owns the invention is an individual or otherwise. Whatever will push progress more reliably.

The political system does care, and this is why some patent legislation is affected by the interests of individual inventors - it is a lobby that gets a lot of bang for its buck because of the overemphasis on inventors in American industrial mythology.

Incentive systems are statistical and have attenuated effects, and anectodal abuses and ridiculous inequities will abound. There's a couple of problems with patents.

First, all we ever hear about is abuse and inequities, because those are more interesting from a news perspective.

Second, notwithstanding that the effects should be gradual and statistical, there is no way to test it for any industry. Economic models are cute, but are immediately overwhelmed by externalities. So the bargain is one of faith.

Combine these two, and you can look forward to a future of repeated stories of trolls, corporate greed, and other interesting news items, all revolving around an incentive system that no-one knows works.

And don't tell me it doesn't work for specific technologies like software or works extra well for others like biotech, because there is no way to find either of those out. You can't draw any causative correlation between anything here, and every attempt I have ever seen eventually descends into personal anecdotes of inequity and commons dogma. We just don't know, and probably won't ever know. ]]>Nov 17th 2006 3:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
Funniest thing I heard today.]]>Nov 17th 2006 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/Nov 17th 2006 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
Please tell us all how you intend to capitalize on your next invention without the use of the US patent system. Are you going to rely on the good faith of AMD, INTEL, Via, IBM, Sony, and Texas Instruments not to rip you off? Remind me to invest in your start up.]]>Nov 17th 2006 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
andy: see the above paragraph. These people do not invent, they exist to buy existing patents and sue.]]>Nov 17th 2006 2:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/Nov 17th 2006 2:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
AMD itself, has required the use of litigation to protect its own interests and so has Intel.

It is also "those that do" that just so happen to own more of these "useless" patents than anyone else. When you are a small company like Via, Transmeta, ARM, or MIPS, patent litigation is the only way to prevent yourself from getting completely taken advantage of, especially when licenses account for most of your revenue. Some companies just don't have the budget to just "do" on a whim, without worrying about someone copying them, especially the more innovative ones.

Companies like Intel steal ideas regardless of the fear of patent litigation. Can you imagine what it would be like without this fear? The uber-companies are usually fresh out of ideas and will often take advantage of the lesser ones, especially if they don't feel they will litigate. It is the start-ups that typically create, and when almost magically, Centrino shows up with your technology, don't you think you would sue? AMD almost went out of business in the 90's thanks to some unethical practices of "those that do." Transmeta has almost the same story, although more recently. I can't blame them.]]>Nov 17th 2006 3:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
individual inventor as opposed to megacorporation who simply powerhouses their way into the market overwhelming and undercutting the profitability of a smaller house manufacturing.

"Patents are (for current circumstances, poorly) designed as a disclosure for exclusivity bargain, to statistically accelerate diffusion of new technical ideas in exchange for granting mini-monopolies for a limited time."

Yes, that is a more technical discourse on what a patent is, but the essence of a patent is to provide as you suggest, a time-limited monopoly so the innovator can recover costs and find a profit. The meat of the patent system is to increase the risk/reward scenerio, we can't argue on that point at least.

"The incentive system does not give a crap whether the inventor is an individual or a team or otherwise, or whether the party that owns the invention is an individual or otherwise. Whatever will push progress more reliably."

See above...

"The political system does care..."

And you don't see the patent system as a positive for the small time inventor who can simply demand a license from a larger corporation. I don't need to have the aim of creating the product for my lifetime, it was good enough to spend my second mortgage on the invention and R&D. I should [for the lifetime of the patent] be allowed to demand licensing for IP that I create. You would expect the same for your patent, and hard work.

"First, all we ever hear about is abuse and inequities, because those are more interesting from a news perspective."

True, sadly. But some of us are interested in the entirety, not just the bad seeds.

"Second, notwithstanding that the effects should be gradual and statistical, there is no way to test it for any industry. Economic models are cute, but are immediately overwhelmed by externalities. So the bargain is one of faith."

Interesting verbiage. I'm not much on Faith, which is why I believe in the patent system. Albeit, as you write below, I'm also against corporate greed which apparently is becoming very popular within the construct of the patent system. Regardless, people will find a way to abuse power.

We can't even post a sign without someone finding the loophole instead of adhering to the spirit of the sign. Apply that to the patent system, and you get the same thing.

Opti may not have been the original inventor, but they have the exclusive license granted to them by the assignment of the rights to the invention by the original inventor. They bought the rights, and have the right to seek compensation for its use. Simple.

You will, never, and I mean NEVER EVER, see someone who has spent their time and money suggest that the patent system is defunct unless they are the ones on the better end of the reorganization of the patent system. If you do find one, I'd like to read why they feel it is broken.]]>Nov 17th 2006 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
These groups dont invent and they dont make anything, they have no desire to ever make anything. Their only purpose is to aqquire patents and then sit and wait so they can make money by suing other companies and try and get them to settle out of court (which usually includes a recurring fee as long as they are using the patents). The last thing they want is to have them remove the "infringing product" from the market because then they cant leech money from it anymore (they will NEVER make the product themselves), they do more work trying to get a settlement than they do trying win the actual case.

If you ever plan on inventing some technological thing then be prepared to get sued by these firms on a regular basis.]]>Nov 17th 2006 3:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
Patents are a good idea as they do protect an invention/inventor from being exploited but unfortunately the USPO has such a backlog it has turned into a breeding ground for trolls to grow while most of their patents arent even approved, nor will they ever be, yet they are tied up in the "approval process" and somehow thats valid in court? How bout a judge say "once a patent is approved, only then can it bevalid to base a case off of" and we can cut out all this other mess. Plus I think we should shorten the length of validity for patents particularly concerning technology as most are old and/or outdated by the time they are approved by the USPO (assuming their backlog estimates are correct and the waiting line is like 2years or something).

If I run for office Im going to run on a platform of Patent reform!]]>Nov 17th 2006 3:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
No protection for inventors and excess in the patent system have the same impact: slowing down innovation.
If after a lot of work you discover a great technology, and you decide to not use and just keep the patent and sue whoever use it, nobody will benefit from this innovation, and it won't be used to potentially develop other innovations.

I fully agree that if you put a lot of hard work into something, you should be able to patent it, to avoid having someone using YOUR work without having been through all the R&D (including spending $millions and lot of time).

But in some cases, you have many companies doing research on a same field, sometimes with the same goal. Usually, your R&D is confidential, so you don't talk about it with your competitors. So what happens when two firms spend months and millions on a project, they find the same innovation around the same time,and that one get the patent just because it was submitted a little earlier?
Both companies spent time, money and energy on the project, but one is supposed to pay the other because the law says so?
And don't tell me that it cannot happen and that it's obvious that one of them must have copied the other. We're more than 6 billions on this planet. It's more than possible to have 2 people thinking about the same solution to a problem at the same time.]]>Nov 17th 2006 4:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/Nov 17th 2006 4:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
here they come, in order:
IBM, Microsoft, HP


"hold patents that they do not make products based on and then sue those that do"

Also, Burst technologies (look them up) was a software company with 100 people. When MS stole their authentication system, they went bust and are now sueing based on their patents. "Patent Troll" was coined in reference to Burst Tech by a clever litigator. Who is the bad guy?]]>Nov 17th 2006 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
]]>Nov 17th 2006 4:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/
What you're referring to is conception followed by diligence in reducing the invention to practice beats out an intervening inventor who conceives after you but reduces to practice before you. You're given the benefit of your conception date for the date of invention for purposes of determining who was 'first to invent'. It's still first to invent, like I said.]]>Nov 17th 2006 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/Nov 17th 2006 5:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/17/patent-troll-going-after-amd-for-infringement/Nov 17th 2006 7:20PM