backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 31 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Feb 12 at 2:35 PM
The University of Wisconsin-Madison alleges Intel used its patent without permission

Intel is certainly no stranger to litigation; the company had its share of antitrust, intellectual property and copyright cases in 2007. 

Yahoo News reports that a new lawsuit was filed against Intel by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The suit alleges that Intel infringed upon the university’s patents with technology used in the line of Intel Core processors.

According to the lawsuit filed last week, Intel uses technology in the Intel Core processor architecture to increase the speed and efficiency of the processors that was created at the university. The suit was filed by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which is a private non-profit organization that controls the university’s patents.

Yahoo News Quotes WARF attorney Michael Falk as saying, “WARF contacted Intel about the issue in 2001 and repeatedly offered the company legal licensing opportunities for the technology.” The lawsuit alleges that Intel continued to use the technology without a licensing agreement.

Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy  issued the following statement, “We dispute their claims and we certainly intend to conduct a vigorous defense.” The WARF seeks with the lawsuit to stop Intel from selling the processors and to force Intel to pay damages and legal fees to the university. The university says that any money won from the suit would be used to fund more research.

Intel could possibly settle this case as it did with similar litigation brought against it by Transmeta Corporation. Intel settled with Transmeta in October of 2007 for $250 million. The settlement also granted Intel the right to use Transmeta technology in its products for ten years.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Amiga500 on 2/11/2008 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Or is it another wordy patent they have little real claim to having earned the right to claim on?

I do like to see universities protect their work, it funds the next research project. But, I do not like (actually, I hate) to see people claim patent rights on the back of a sentence or, with little real work in the area.

Which is the case here?




By Alexstarfire on 2/11/2008 11:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
Who knows?

I think it's stupid that they can sue now when the patent has been broken for years. There needs to be some kind of time limit on this crap. I'm tired of seeing people sure over patents that were broken nearly a decade ago. It's like shouting out that you didn't care until you were in financial trouble.


By mindless1 on 2/11/2008 9:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
There is a time limit, when the patent expires, or maybe if Intel weren't selling processors based on this tech still? I'm not saying Intel's necessarily in the wrong, personally I think it's a bit sad that an institution of learning is trying to prevent use of what has been learned. So they can't fund further research? Maybe, just maybe they don't need to be doing advanced processor research that is unfeasible for anyone but a processor manufacturer to use.

This hinges on whether Intel outright ripped the tech or independantly had parallel development, IMO.


By tmouse on 2/12/2008 8:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you divide advancement into two phases: lateral and vertical you would find that the majority of vertical developments (those that develop truly new advancements in a field) do in fact come from academia. Companies usually spend 100:1 or more in lateral development (making things smaller, cheaper, faster) its just because companies almost always have to direct their research to profit making. Now there are certainly exceptions, IBM's Watson center comes to mind, and a few of the largest like Intel do invest in unproven technologies but it is few in far between. Heck I know people who were working for IBM in the early 70's that were developing recordable disk media. Most academic research has little to no short term profitability, however it IS vital to basic understanding that DOES develop into viable products (via lateral innovation) so its loss would be devastating to all technology.


By tmouse on 2/12/2008 8:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well the article says they have been trying to negotiate some form of agreement since 2001. Many large companies stonewall for years banking on the courts reluctance to issue a restraining order when a product has become a major player in a field. Is it a valid complaint, don't know, but the courts requires evidence that the injured party has tried to reach an agreement before litigation can proceed. If it had started earlier it would have been far worse for Intel since they very well could have been forced to stop sell processors until the matter was settled. That simply will not happen now.


By Proteusza on 2/11/2008 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
He he - like as not, Madison will buy some of those new fangled Core CPUs and send the money back to Intel.

Although, seeing as Transmeta settled for $250 million, you could be buying a whole lot of PCs.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/11/2008 12:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
UWM is a pretty big research institute in the midwest. Not as big as University of Illinois or Purdue, but they still carry a lot of clout.

I don't know this particular group, but based on past patent cases that have come out of UWM, they have an excellent reputation for high profile cases.


By AlphaVirus on 2/11/2008 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you guys follow up on this case because it sounds like it should get real interesting.

I too, like other posters, get tired of people filing suites against a company that infringes, years and years after that infringing company becomes famous and wealthy.

There really should be a time stipulation on these patents. I know there is a 1 year limit on "If the product has been in production for at least 1 year you may not file a patent". But there should also be one similar like "If you have a patent and someone else has been using it for at least 2 years then you may not file lawsuit.


By rocketcuse on 2/11/2008 2:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
It does seem more lawsuits are filled after a significant financial gain has occurred.
But, I don’t think that is the case here. The way I read the article, almost immediately upon knowing, Wisconsin informed Intel of the violation. Since 2001 Wisconsin has been trying to resolve this issue with Intel to no satisfaction. Legal action is/was Wisconsin only recourse.

I’m not sure I agree with a statue of limitation, if you own the patent, you should be able to request a license fee and compensation. However, if it is proven that the filing company waited until a significant financial gain occurred I would say compensation damage awards should be reduced.


By P4blo on 2/12/2008 6:35:04 AM , Rating: 3
Couldn't agree less. If you dont want to get done for patent infringement, dont steal the patent. I'm sure in most of these cases (as with this one) there are many years of wrangling where the alleged infringers just buy time and delay the whole thing.

If you're going to sue a company for patent infringement it's pretty fair to sue them partly off the back of the success they enjoyed from stealing your patent. It verifies it's importance and demonstrates how much money it could have earned the University if Intel had licensed it properly.

I have absolutely no doubt here that Intel are the ones who would lie, cheat and deceive their way through this legal challenge - it's business right? The University wouldn't go to these lengths just for the fun of it. I bet they have a case.


By Oregonian2 on 2/11/2008 2:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting. You're advocating that patent holders have quick-triggers to file patent lawsuits -- essentially making it mandatory.


By rocketcuse on 2/11/2008 8:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not really.

It's just my opinion that it's wrong and unethical that a patent holder knowingly and willfully sits on his infringed patent in order to receive a large settlement. This appears to be the case more often than not.

All I am saying is basically, if your patent is being infringed upon, you should notify the infringing party and try to settle it without legal action. Not wait to see if that company will make a huge profit, in return you make a huge court damage award. Should you choose to sit and hope for that payout, you shouldn’t receive a large sum.

With that said, you don't necessarily have to file a lawsuit for the infringed patent. Just as this case. Wisconsin tried to resolve this matter without legal action for several years. At least the article implies that. Wisconsin felt it only recourse to settle this matter was by legal means.


By KernD on 2/11/2008 11:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you read the article? Intel has been staling things since 2001(Asked to pay, but refused), they must have been arguing back and forth for years. Seeing how this gets them nowhere, the university had to sue to get things moving.


By rocketcuse on 2/12/2008 10:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I read the article. Did you read my two posts?

I beleive in both posts, I pointed out how Wisconsin tried to resolve the infringement without legal action. I applaud them for this. This is how it should be done. Now, with Intel's refusal to cooperate, a lawsuit is needed in order to obtain a settlement. That I think we can all agree on is now the right course of action.

In my posts I went one step further. I stated my opinion that I felt it was wrong and unethical that a patent holder knowingly and willfully sits on their infringed patent in order to receive a large settlement. As I stated in earlier posts,This isn't the case with Wisconsin!

Wisconsin tried to resolve this matter without legal action for several years. At least the article implies that. Wisconsin felt it only recourse to settle this matter was by legal means.


By Oregonian2 on 2/12/2008 2:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
AlphaVirus had suggested that if a company can use a patent for two years that they'd be home free. Meaning that if it took a year or nearly two for one to even find out that your patent has been used by somebody somewhere in some product, you've no time for negotiation and you need to get a lawsuit filed pronto. What's worse is that it may take more than two years to find out that your patent has been violated, unless it's something obvious external to a product and in a product that's a biggie (if a small company in Nome Alaska or twodot Montana made a product with your patented idea in it, and is only now finally making headway in their marketting of it -- three years later -- they've got a freebie from you?

I might agree that the terms (with renewals fully used) of a patent can sometimes be excessively long, but two years is way way too short. And a two year lawsuit deadline essentially makes that the term of the patent.


By rykerabel on 2/11/2008 5:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
Statute of Limitations
7 or 11 years


By mindless1 on 2/11/2008 9:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
It does seem as though they sought to resolve this years ago, so it's not as though they just turned a blind eye all along. Maybe they had hearsay about it, made an inquiry and statement and then it took a heck of a long time to actually prove anything. Remember that you can't just charge into court making accusations, well apparently you can but it isn't the best strategy.

Maybe it was a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back situation, that they'd have been willing to overlook a few things but it just went too far, or maybe the IP rights philosophy of someone at the uni was different than their successor. Should the university, if truely entitled to compensation, do without it only because one or a handful of those in power made a poor judgement at the time?

In the end we have to consider what best serves the students. I'm not saying they'll necessarilly benefit as a group from this, furthering expensive research that only a processor manufacturer could use sounds more like a business than a facility for higher learning but ultimately we also have to see that if higher learning is never actually applied in our world, it was a folly, a waste of time.


By Are Back on 2/11/2008 2:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
UWM is a pretty big research institute in the midwest.


UW-M Refers specifically to the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.

UW-MSN or simply UW refers to Madison.