Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, others sued by Implicit Networks in patent brouhaha

Implicit Networks isn't exactly a household name, but it sure looks like its trying to make itself known with its latest lawsuit, which takes aim at no less than Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Sun and Real Networks (plus semiconductor company Raza Microelectronics). As you've no doubt surmised, the cause of all that litigiousness is some alleged patent infringement by those big name companies, and specifically a violation of Implicit's patent for "Methods and System for Demultiplexing a First Sequence of Packet Components to Identify Specific Components Wherein Subsequent Components are Processed without Re-identifying Components." Exactly what that is, we're not sure, but Implicit claims that each of the aforementioned companies violated it in their own particular way, and it's now demanding an unspecified amount of cash in return.

[Darkest Daze @ Feb 20th 2008 2:30PM]

A major company being sued over patents? Oh my, I'm in a state of surprise....

[John @ Feb 20th 2008 2:34PM]

Well, I have no idea what that patent is really for, but it certainly SOUNDS as if it's specific enough...

[Naveed @ Feb 20th 2008 2:50PM]

I am not an expert on this by any means, but it does not sound specific at all to me. Sounds like a methodology of data processing, but the statement sure isn't specifc as to HOW it is done.

[Brad @ Feb 20th 2008 5:35PM]

It is a method for setting up "circuit" style streams of data over Ethernet. Normally, packets have to have their headers read, inspected, processed, and then they get re-assembled on the other side.

However, since this is how just about all streaming data is done (including delivering large images, SSH protocol, etc) I'd be very surprised if this one holds up, given that it isn't old enough to have expired yet.

[Dr. Evil @ Feb 20th 2008 6:31PM]

... also know as MSDFSPCISCWSCPRC technology

Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internet (and all it's supporting technologies including but not limited to MSDFSPCISCWSCPRC technology)

[paragraph @ Feb 20th 2008 2:35PM]

I'm no electrical engineer, but it looks like they are suing over the ability to process information...

[Moe Abe @ Feb 20th 2008 7:52PM]

So then there would be prior art.

[Anton @ Feb 20th 2008 2:37PM]

Brouhaha!!!

[Graham @ Feb 20th 2008 3:25PM]

No no no! its MWOOHAHAH

[Grandalf @ Feb 20th 2008 5:47PM]

Brouhaha instantly made me thing of the race of vampires in Vampire: The Mascarade... Crap...

[trevor @ Feb 20th 2008 10:06PM]

Man, I've just gotta say it: I miss OiNK. I cry a little on the inside every time I see your avatar.

Sigh.

[AlexL @ Feb 20th 2008 2:55PM]

"Methods and System for Demultiplexing a First Sequence of Packet Components to Identify Specific Components Wherein Subsequent Components are Processed without Re-identifying Components."

This sounds like signal detection to me. A processor needs to decode a stream of data, but doesn't know what data type the stream is. It decodes the first frame of the stream (say, a multiplexed video with h264 encoded video and HE-AAC audio) and proceeds to decode the entire stream without having to verify every frame what the stream data type is. I'm pretty sure many real time applications that needs to decode data function this way to speed things up. If this company really does have a patent on this, it sounds valid enough.

[AlexL @ Feb 20th 2008 3:00PM]

To clarify that a bit, I realize that my example of the multiplexed digital video stream isn't a very good example because the video container should have that information explicitly stated, and thus the processor shouldn't have to do the detection at all. But there are information regarding multiplexed signals that sometimes aren't stated explicitly, such as original framerate. A video stream encoded at 60FPS may have an original video frame rate of 24FPS (for example any DVD movie) but this information is not explicitly noted in the stream itself, so the processor will need to detect this. But after detecting the initial bits of the stream, it no longer makes sense to detect this for every part of the stream, it makes more sense to just assume the detected information holds for the rest of th stream. I think this is what the patent covers.

[Snowdog @ Feb 20th 2008 3:53PM]

To me it sounds like it should have failed the obvious test. But bogus patent granting is what it is all about.

[andy @ Feb 20th 2008 7:11PM]

You guys should read the patent.

I find that reading the text of a lenghty paper helps me understand what the author is talking about a lot better than just reading the title.

Also, try reading the claims since that's what must have some aspect that is novel and non-obvious with respect to the prior art.

[Jeff @ Feb 20th 2008 2:58PM]

does "demanding an unspecified amount of cash" just mean that this patent troll is suing for "whatever money we can get"?

[andy @ Feb 20th 2008 3:23PM]

I'm surprised it took someone this long to break out the "troll" label. How exactly do you define troll again?

Is it a nonpracticing entity that is not practicing because you put them out of business like in Z4 and Microsoft?

Or is it someone who tries to negotiate a license to legally owned IP, but is denied because the big players had rather litigate?

Or is it any patent holder who asserts their rights?

Or is it someone who buys patents out of bankruptcy from a formerly practicing entity and then sues the company who put the formerly practicing entity out of business by ripping off their IP?




BTW, Engadget, the title does not denote what the applicant beleives to be the invention. Copy the text of claim 1 into your write-up if you give a crap about the actual scope of the invention. I'm sure you don't though, because inviting the "troll" FUD gets a lot more hits.

Since when do people think the title of a paper contains the exact disclosure of the scope of that paper? Does "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" tell you everything that's in the book, or do you actually have to read it first to know what's there? I guess you guys just have to read the title to know everything that's in the book.

[Colin Jensen @ Feb 20th 2008 3:50PM]

A troll is a creature that hides beneath a bridge, waiting to appear at an opportune moment once it's quarry has blundered into danger.

A patent troll is a creature which files a patent, but strings out the filing process for years while "clarifying" the patent. They can either try to add new "clarifications" to their patent text so that an existing product infringes, or they can sit with their obvious invention waiting for people to infringe on its obviousness. Then they spring out and attack once someone has blundered into infringing while the patent was unknown.

In this case, I bet they're really trolling for investors. If they were serious about the lawsuits, they'd only sue one company at a time rather than fight the combined forces all at once. For example, we've seen several suits against Microsoft where, when the plantiff wins they then turn around and quickly extort from Apple too.

[andy @ Feb 20th 2008 4:54PM]

You've successfully added new matter to the specification of a patent?

No, we both know you haven't because that's not allowed.

It is allowable however, to bring limitations from the specification into the claims to further limit the claims so that they do not read on the prior art and are therefore allowable.


Utility, novelty, and non-obviousness are required to get a patent. How are you getting that patent that is known to be obvious again?

You seem to know so much about patents for someone who doesn't know anything about the rules.

[andy @ Feb 20th 2008 4:59PM]

By the way, you can string out prosecution, but filing is a day of thing. You either file an application or you don't. There is not "stringing out filing."


But stringing out prosecution is expensive, and you can't sue based on a patent application, you have to have an issued patent to actually sue. So how does that benefit you again?



Or by your troll definition are you trying to make a reference to the 1960's problem with submarine patents where they filed a very broad disclosure and then tried to file continuations based on those disclosures with unsupported claim sets? That's already been solved with a court decision and a couple of rules by the way. So you're defining a troll as something that existed before the term "patent troll" was coined by IBM's inside counsel?

Also, IBM happens to be the largest IP holding non-practicing entity on Earth which brings some measure of irony to the term troll to begin with.

[Brian @ Feb 20th 2008 6:01PM]

So, andy... in my incomplete understanding, are we trying to argue that there's no such thing as a "patent troll", or are we just getting annoyed that the term is being overused? Because I doubt anyone here would agree that current patent lawsuits are never filed by IP squatters.

[Jeff @ Feb 20th 2008 7:07PM]

@andy

Ever heard of Implicit Networks? search google. "Implicit Networks" on google results in only 967, and without counting, i'm willing to bet that a huge numer of those results are redundant, completely unrelated to the company, and all the rest are about this lawsuit. implicitnetworks.com is a 404. "Implicit" shows no results on Yahoo Finance.

They hardly exist.

in my opinion, if Implicit Networks had made any effort to bring this patent concept to market, maybe they'd be excused from the troll status, but considering no one's ever heard of them, i somehow doubt it ever tried anything (or had any intentions to whatsoever).

I'm making the assumption, then, that they own the patent but never intended on doing anything with it other than make a quick buck off other people's success. IE: trolling / squatting.

I could be wrong, but i see little evidence to the contrary.

[andy @ Feb 20th 2008 7:08PM]

Brian, your favorite large company is both a "troll" and an "IP squatter" no matter how you define it. That is, they hold and assert patents to technology that they do not practice. You're never going to be able to define those words in ways that don't include IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, etc.

The thing is that you guys are applying negative terms to describe small entities who have invested in IP protection without having evaluated the merits of their case.

Everyone who files a lawsuit against a big player is not automatically a "gold digger", "troll", or otherwise. If they were, the big guys would never settle because that would encourage others to file bogus suits. Then why do they settle? Fear of losing? If they're afraid of losing, how bogus was that suit?

[YankeeDooda @ Feb 20th 2008 2:58PM]

anyone else relating Implicit to an STD? You get them when you're famous and rich, and theyre a bugger to get rid of without money and something painful-sounding.

[Charlie Calhoun @ Feb 20th 2008 3:33PM]

You're seeing two words there. Limp, meaning, well haha you know. And Illicit, meaning prostitute. Unless Nevada is your thing... or Rhode Island for that matter...

[Frankenstein Black @ Feb 20th 2008 3:18PM]

Once again a Troll rears its ugly head from beneath the rock under the bridge where it dwells. Stop trying to become a Leprechaun in search of a pot of gold. Go home Troll, go home...

[Loonie @ Feb 20th 2008 3:54PM]

Is there a particular Method and/or System they have in mind, or are they just claiming nebulous ownership of the idea behind a vast variety of processing systems?

[Bill Brasky @ Feb 20th 2008 4:04PM]

I'm surprised they're not suing Microsoft too. I skimmed through the patent and it sounds an awful lot like DirectShow's automatic graph building including how the graph components expose what formats they input and what formats they output.

Oh, wait, DirectShow came out YEARS before the patent was filed. Might not want to point out that prior art....

[ReggieXuk @ Feb 20th 2008 4:10PM]

I hate patent talk, if i was using patent talk to type what I'm typing it would be like this.

The dislike of patent talk in which the style of talk used to type/talk would elongate the sentence which is being typed at present, if attempted to be typed in said patent talk.

*now likes patent talk, makes me sound smart^

[phanbouy @ Feb 20th 2008 5:14PM]

Implicit should buy out Gizmondo.

[jgeh @ Feb 20th 2008 6:47PM]

Contrary to what those in the developer community might believe, it is non-trivial to have a patent reviewed and defended by a legal firm. It is time consuming and costly, and often undertaken on a contingency basis. This company has a successful patent defense history against companies of a similar stature. I suspect their claim is thought to be valid or they wouldn't pursue it. Patent law exists specifically so that organizations with balance sheet clout don't have their way with other people's intellectual property. Prior art, etc, are all taken into account in a hearing. If there is a violation there will be an award. If they settle out of court then I guess you also have your answer.

[phanbouy @ Feb 20th 2008 6:20PM]

non-trivial eh? that doesn't almost not suck! how does Implicit treat its lawyers these days?

[andy @ Feb 20th 2008 7:14PM]

I guessed that tech people would be somewhat familiar with patents.

From these comments, I can see just how wrong I was. There really are a lot of clueless people out there.

[Torgo @ Feb 20th 2008 7:39PM]

andy:

Being a programmer, and often writing code to process large amounts of data. I acutally often use techniques such as this to process data of an initially unknown format, then processing subsequent data without re-identifing the components. It's acutally a "Duh!" thing. This patent should have died at "Obvious".

Hell, this one is so vague, I'm sure I could write some code in about ten minutes that would violate this patent. Even something as common as creatating a dynamic class and then de-serializing it out of xml in .net.

OH NO!

I'm going to hell.

[Moe Abe @ Feb 20th 2008 7:59PM]

Even though it would be more time consuming, It would be advantageous for patents to be demonstrated before being awarded. I think that this used to be part of the process.

[skulldriveshaft @ Feb 20th 2008 9:00PM]

So that means everything must be patented all the way through from the first meeting in the R&D departments for any company from now on.

Most of the R&D departments I have seen so far kinda work in isolation. Others look at what they have done previously themselves and try to improve things.

What I'm wondering is, how does the company holding the patent know that their patent has been violated? Would you have to go through another patent to find out that your patent is being infringed upon?

It's just going to get exponentially complex from here on out for just about every company out there.

Logical processes that result in a specific way of getting something done, don't usually have that many alternatives, you would have to add a step, or another process, to achieve the same result, which would result in a hit on efficiency.

Maybe patents should also include one more specification: licensing fee. But I don't think that could work in a for profit environment, charge X times more for smaller licensees, and a discounted rate for larger licensees.

We might even start running into roadblocks like those experienced in past centuries by scientists, "everything that exists has already been patented, and everything from now on will infringe on one or more patents."

Let Implicit Networks have their day in court, I don't really blame the company, I would rather take a closer look at their legal counsel, and who is actually in charge of the intellectual property issues, the company or the lawyers.

I'm getting closer to skipping anything mentioning patent infringement, or updates of, because from past experience, it's just flame bait.

Thanks Donald, but lets get some more interesting articles about gadgets, leave the legal wrangling to the lawyers.

[Good_Bytes @ Feb 20th 2008 10:08PM]

Please correct me if I am wrong, I just ask because I want to know:

I don't really know ho patent works exactly.. but if this invention the company claim to be their own, and it is being widely used... doesn't they lose their patent, as it became public or something?! And it is the company fault to not track down the patent infringement sooner?

[dragon2o00 @ Feb 21st 2008 12:21PM]

how would losing the patent because everyone does it make any sense? when you file the patent, you HOPE that everyone does it. patent life is 20 years from filing date in most cases. if they're filing a suit now, it means that it's still valid, giving the filing date between 1988 and now.

there are plenty of potential reasons why the suit happened now. i'm sure the inventors knew all along it was being infringed. issues of money for litigation is a common problem as small companies don't have the funds that a large corporation does. it could be they found investors and decided to go for it or they could've convinced a law firm to go on a contingency basis (maybe a 50/50 deal) so if they bring in $100 million, the law firm gets $50 million. if that's the case, the law firm was obviously convinced of not only the validity but the infringement as well.

[dragon2o00 @ Feb 21st 2008 12:22PM]

sheesh, every time one of these patent cases come up, there are plenty of people who try to claim the case invalid because everyone does it. you're missing the POINT of a patent. most likely, the patent was filed in the mid-80s to early 90s. are you saying that you know for sure that everyone was already doing what the patent covers at that time? because if that were truly the case, the patent would never be issued.

people on this board are so quick to jump in and throw out a "patent troll" without understanding anything. in the IP/business world, patents are considered assets that are supposed to generate revenue. if you don't want to generate revenue, you don't file a patent (except for the idiots who file patents for stupid things). look at IBM and qualcomm. both companies generate a significant portion of their revenue from IP even though a company like qualcomm hasn't made a phone in years yet their IP side brings in what, like 60% of their total revenues? it wouldn't be a surprise to me either that more motorola cases start coming out as their mobile division keeps failing.

stop throwing the patent troll terms out and saying how just because you do this method, the patent is invalid because it's stupid. if nothing else, i hope they read this board, see your company, and adds them to the suit. this company is built on small businesses and if this patent is valid, they deserve their money. what you are missing is that every one of the companies sued are fully aware of the existence of this patent because, if it's truly valid, they would cite it in their own patents. willful infringement is illegal and punishment will fullow.

[Geek60percent @ Feb 23rd 2008 5:01AM]

Read the patent yourself before even try to defend it!

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6629163.html

The first claim sounds to me some lawyer decide to take out a networking textbook (no, not those on TCP/IP stuff, but on classic router architecture) and summarize the definition of a virtual channel (or wormhole routing) in lawyer's talk. (Correct me if I am wrong!)

The patent is filed in 1999, granted in 2003. There should be plenty of routers around with that kind of architecture by 1999.

This does not mean I hate the idea of patent (I have read tens of truly novel patents at truly deserves the grant), but this is clearly an abuse to me!

[anyone @ Apr 24th 2008 2:50PM]

Looks like they succeeded in patenting Microsoft's Direct Show architecture 4 years after it was publicly released.