This is why we can't have nice things.

Legacy-ZAThis is why we can't have nice things.

Patents are complicated. No patents means nobody will want to put the effort in R&D, but on the other side, with a patent system we have potential patent trolls.

Honestly, I think the problem comes from stupid patents being allowed (see for an example www.eff.org/es/taxonomy/term/11344 ), the people at patent offices being way out of their field and approving whatever comes through the door (or being idiots, see patents.google.com/patent/US5443036 ), and in some cases, excessive length of duration (yes, 20 years in tech fields is an eternity, IMO)

Though, I definitely want to see how this ends, it will be interesting to see what Intel has to say.

Before everyone gets excited about chipzilla losing money, don't worry, costs of that will ultimately be passed onto customers by higher prices.

They make around 22bil a year so it’s only about 10% so kinda small change in the grand scheme of things

However
. The patents are related to clock frequency control and minimum memory operating voltage technique and were awarded to Freescale Semiconductor Inc in 2012 and SigmaTel in 2010.

I’m not a chip designer so question how is one supposed to be aware of all the patents out there? Is there some search engine for finding out that kind of stuff?

ExcuseMeWtfBefore everyone gets excited about chipzilla losing money, don't worry, costs of that will ultimately be passed onto customers by higher prices.

Or good luck to the plantiff... getting that money from Intel will be like getting blood from a turnip.

windwhirlpatent trolls

Patent trolls don't exist. This is a fictionary term invented by the Intel shills in order to try to justify their illegal actions.

Smartcom5when the accusant in question is of all things VLSI Technology (one of the hatcheries of the silicon industry on ASIC-logics and whatnot)

This incarnation of VLSI is 4 years old and is owned by Fortress Investment Group, owned further up the ladder by Softbank. This is a broad patent proxy war by Softbank against Intel for NXP patents given to a shell corp portfolio using an oldguard name.

techrights.org/2017/10/07/ziilabs-vlsi-technology-and-alphacap/

techrights.org/2017/09/30/mpegla-and-fortress/

www.fortress.com/shareholders/news/2017-12-27-softbank-group-completes-acquisition-of-fortress-investment-group

ARFPatent trolls don't exist. This is a fictionary term invented by the Intel shills in order to try to justify their illegal actions.

Do tell then what should I think of somebody patenting the idea of using a laser pointer to make a cat do some exercise.

Smartcom5Ignorantia juris non excusat—Ignorance is no excuse in law!

absolutely correct, however, when using labels of someone actions, there is still a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance and you will find some courts do take that into exception but usually when determining awards. I'm no law expert, I could be wrong here, but I've been to court once or twice.

Smartcom5Courtlistener is always a stunningly good source on thinks like that! Bookmark it in case you may run dry on sauce …
Here's the link for the initial complaint filed by VLSI:
→ www.courtlistener.com/docket/14917461/1/vlsi-technology-llc-v-intel-corporation/

Of course, due to the nature of the matter of it, it's highly technical and cryptic in layman's terms. Though I take it that it's a solid non-issue for y'all freaks here.
There are essentially 3 patents in question here already. Shamelessly stealing here from /u/CyberpunkDre (kudos chap!);

Mind you, each claim starts and ends with standard legal jargon but the middle of each has inserts of Intel presentations on the "infringing" technology and how VLSI alleges that the named technology is what is described in the patent.

1. First Claim Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,357
   Intel products that use dynamic cache shrink technology in an infringing manner.
   Link to the patent in question: → patents.google.com/patent/US8156357B2/en
2. Second Claim Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,523,373
   Intel products that use fuses or other non-volatile memory to store information about SRAM minimum voltages in an infringing manner.
   Link to the patent in question: → patents.google.com/patent/US7523373B2/en
3. Third Claim Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759
   Intel products that use infringing Hardware-Controlled Performance States (“HWP” or “Speed Shift”) technology
   Link to the patent in question: → patents.google.com/patent/US7725759B2/en

Thank you.
So, basically:
1. Memory size can be controlled by voltage.
Intel designed the Ivy Bridge cache (LLC) in a way that by lowering the voltage to it, less cache was available for use.
2. Related to the one before, but about saving minimum voltage data in non-volatile way.
Intel is saving the minimum voltage for the same cache in SRAM on each Ivy Bridge CPU.
3. Controlling clock speed based on monitoring multiple devices on a bus.
Intel has SpeedShift tech that bases clock speed based on things like core workload.
SpeedShift was added with Skylake and although the complaint does not seem to say that clearly, the infringing part is probably moving that to hardware. Intel had functionally and largely technically similar SpeedStep for a while before that.

By the descriptions in lawsuit the patent system seems pretty broken. Or VLSI is a patent troll in this case.

What is a little suspicious is that the first patent was issued in 2012. Ivy Bridge was launched in that same month.
Second patent is from 2009 and third is from 2010.

Edit:
This makes me curious though, are all the semiconductor companies paying them already or are we waiting for additional lawsuits?
These patents sound simple enough that at least 3rd should be used by pretty much every modern CPU, GPU or *PU really.
Not sure about the first two, maybe nobody does voltage-derived memory sizes but I doubt that is the case.

londiste3. Controlling clock speed based on monitoring multiple devices on a bus.
Intel has SpeedShift tech that bases clock speed based on things like core workload.

Wait, wasn't that implemented in the Pentium 4 before the patent application was filed? The Pentium 4 has SpeedStep, which is basically that, and launched in 2005, which means the design already considered such capability maybe years prior to that patent?

windwhirlWait, wasn't that implemented in the Pentium 4 before the patent application was filed? The Pentium 4 has SpeedStep, which is basically that, and launched in 2005, which means the design already considered such capability maybe years prior to that patent?

Edited my post to add that bit because I thought the same thing.

SpeedShift was added with Skylake and although the complaint does not seem to say that clearly, the infringing part is probably moving that to hardware. Intel had functionally and largely technically similar SpeedStep for a while before that.

ZoneDymoits still really personal remark (attack) to put into something that is supposedly just news.... andj ust because you cant find any "real products" doesnt mean nothing is being made or sold so conclusions like that should be made rather lightly I would say.

Even small businesses have a website. Try finding VLSI's website. It's public presence is practically nonexistent. It's NXP hiding behind liability for these actions.

hatPatent trolling again? And why would they start a new company just to hand two patents to so it can start a legal battle with Intel? Why didn't NXP do it themselves?

Smells like possible patent trolling!

windwhirlWait, wasn't that implemented in the Pentium 4 before the patent application was filed? The Pentium 4 has SpeedStep, which is basically that, and launched in 2005, which means the design already considered such capability maybe years prior to that patent?

Also AMD's PowerNow! tech which goes further back to 1998, or VIA's LongHaul from 2000. Both using dynamic frequency based on polling from the bus.

FouquinAlso AMD's PowerNow! tech which goes further back to 1998, or VIA's LongHaul from 2000. Both using dynamic frequency based on polling from the bus.

Add to that Cool'n'Quiet too, from 2002.

It's illegal to claim a 20-year old patent! The patent trolls need to get perm-ban hammered by the Supreme court!

This isn't fracking copyright law we're talking about, FFS!

Patents last nowhere as long as copyrights.

RJARRRPCGPIt's illegal to claim a 20-year old patent! The patent trolls need to get perm-ban hammered by the Supreme court!

This isn't fracking copyright law we're talking about, FFS!

Patents last nowhere as long as copyrights.

The oldest patent is from 2005. It's still up for claims until 2026.

ARFYou have to pay when you use someone else's invention. When you don't pay in time, you steal, they catch you and you pay more later because they sue you :D

Patent trolls don't ever license their innovation though, they just sit on it and sue. It's part of the definition.

RJARRRPCGPIt's illegal to claim a 20-year old patent!

Patents can be renewed.

windwhirlAdd to that Cool'n'Quiet too, from 2002.

CnQ is just PowerNow! with another name. It's the same tech but K8-erized.

R-T-BPatent trolls don't ever license their innovation though, they just sit on it and sue. It's part of the definition.


Patents can be renewed.

They could be viewed as Patent Guardians, protecting I.P. not trolls which is a term used by those wanting to steal that I.P.

Caring1They could be viewed as Patent Guardians, protecting I.P. not trolls which is a term used by those wanting to steal that I.P.

A good guardian would make their IP work for them by Licensing it out, an IP Troll on the otherhand will not it'll sit on their IP in the vain hope of suing someone who vaguely uses anything that may match what their IP does to make money and from the looks of things here in this case this is exactly what VLSI have done

This is what needs to be done with IP law
1: If said inventor of said IP does not make a product or license the usage of the IP within 5 years containing said IP then the IP is open for free usage by anyone
2: If said IP is instead being Licensed for usage by other companies from said inventor then IP remains owned by the inventor for as long as the IP remains relevant for upto a maximum period of 10 years after which the IP is then open and free for use

Imagine how much better CPU and GPU tech we could have without all the wasted money focused on researching patents in every country
"oh sorry engineering we cant use that method, i know the other one uses 20% more power but kevin in korea has a patent"

MusselsImagine how much better CPU and GPU tech we could have without all the wasted money focused on researching patents in every country
"oh sorry engineering we cant use that method, i know the other one uses 20% more power but kevin in korea has a patent"

I'm kinda glad all that shit of actual submarine patents has stopped.

Now, if they could fix the patent office being so stupid as to allow patents for laser pointing cats, that'd be great.

Patents only last for 20-something years after filing. Where I'll be dead before a copyright expires!