|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 09:14 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 09:15 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Windows phone compared to two generation old HTC - Authored by: kg on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 02:27 AM EST
- Democratic Party’s voter registration app is now free and open-source software - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:17 AM EST
- New Help Desk - Uptight Infinity Edition flashes its GUI - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 07:26 AM EST
- Phone unlocking ban could hit you in the wallet - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 10:03 AM EST
- How NewEgg beat a patent troll - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 10:35 AM EST
- Libor Lies Revealed in Rigging of $300,000,000,000,000 = The biggest financial fraud of all time - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Wrong link! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 01:15 PM EST
- Try This - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 01:51 PM EST
- Sir Tim Berners-Lee on gov web spying - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:36 PM EST
- Farrell: "Swartz would be alive but for Ortiz " - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:57 PM EST
- Homeland Security: Disable UPnP - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 04:30 PM EST
- The Uneven Progress of Equal Opportunity - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Death of the netbook? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 11:58 PM EST
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 09:16 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Aaron’s Law, Drafting the Best Limits of the CFAA, And A Reader Poll on A Few Examples - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:19 AM EST
- The collision of law and technology - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:39 AM EST
- Aaron’s Law, Drafting the Best Limits of the CFAA, And A Reader Poll on A Few Examples - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:58 AM EST
- Aaron’s Law, Drafting the Best Limits of the CFAA, And A Reader Poll on A Few Examples - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 08:09 AM EST
- Aaron’s Law, Drafting the Best Limits of the CFAA, And A Reader Poll on A Few Examples - Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 08:14 AM EST
- The technical impossibility is - in my humble opinion - moot to the question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:16 PM EST
- Aaron’s Law, Drafting the Best Limits of the CFAA, And A Reader Poll on A Few Examples - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 02:57 PM EST
- What does Joe actually have access to? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 05:52 AM EST
- Bill Gates: My kids have never asked for Apple products - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 05:04 AM EST
- Java still unsafe, new flaws discovered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 07:18 AM EST
- Ortiz to motel owner: We’re not done yet - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 12:24 PM EST
- Newegg has a clue - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 02:37 PM EST
- Critical Fixes for the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 04:20 PM EST
- Lenovo Splittable laptop-tablet U1 - Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 04:50 PM EST
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 09:17 PM EST |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 09:23 PM EST |
Thanks very much for taking the time and effort to cover this for us.
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:31 AM EST |
From Wikipedia:An application-specific integrated circuit, or ASIC,
is an integrated circuit (IC) customized for a particular use, rather than
intended for general-purpose use. For example, a chip designed to run in a
digital voice recorder is an ASIC. Application-specific standard products
(ASSPs) are intermediate between ASICs and industry standard integrated circuits
like the 7400 or the 4000 series.
As feature sizes have shrunk and
design tools improved over the years, the maximum complexity (and hence
functionality) possible in an ASIC has grown from 5,000 gates to over 100
million. Modern ASICs often include entire microprocessors, memory blocks
including ROM, RAM, EEPROM, Flash and other large building blocks. Such an ASIC
is often termed a SoC (system-on-chip). Designers of digital ASICs use a
hardware description language (HDL), such as Verilog or VHDL, to describe the
functionality of ASICs.
Field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) are the
modern-day technology for building a breadboard or prototype from standard
parts; programmable logic blocks and programmable interconnects allow the same
FPGA to be used in many different applications. For smaller designs and/or lower
production volumes, FPGAs may be more cost effective than an ASIC design even in
production. The non-recurring engineering (NRE) cost of an ASIC can run into the
millions of dollars.
The initial ASICs used gate array technology.
Ferranti produced perhaps the first gate-array, the ULA (Uncommitted Logic
Array), around 1980.
VHDL was originally developed at
the behest of the U.S Department of Defense in order to document the behavior of
the ASICs that supplier companies were including in equipment. That is to say,
VHDL was developed as an alternative to huge, complex manuals which were subject
to implementation-specific details.
The idea of being able to simulate this
documentation was so obviously attractive that logic simulators were developed
that could read the VHDL files. The next step was the development of logic
synthesis tools that read the VHDL, and output a definition of the physical
implementation of the circuit.
I don't know how modern ASICs are
configured, these days, but I have a better idea of how Field Programmable Gate
Arrays (FPGAs) are configured. An FPGA has a lot of circuit blocks that have
special electrical properties such as Input/Output drivers and functions,
computation, memory and clock circuits. The core is the logic
block.
Logic circuits, such as an AND gate, are conventionally made
with a handful of transistors. The 2 input AND gate transistors make sure that
when both the inputs are at '1' the output is '1'. For all other permutations
the output is at '0'. If you think of the device as four, one-bit memory cells,
then the address 11 contains '1' and the other addresses (10, 01, 00) contain
'0'. If you wanted an OR gate or an Exclusive OR gate you just have to put the
correct values from the truth table into the memory cells. As I understand it,
that is how ASICs and FPGAs are 'programmed'.
Programmers don't program
the ASICs or FPGAs. They use GUI logic simulation tools that can load and save
Verilog or VHDL files and, once the logic and other functions operate correctly
in the simulation, set the values required by the chip to deliver those
functions. The programmer does not have any knowledge of how the real world
circuits are used or interconnected.
The 'programmer' does not write in
a programming language. The programmer devises a virtual circuit on the computer
screen and the software tools configure the chip. For FPGAs the design is not
usually held in the chip. There is a serial memory chip that holds the
configuration memory values and the FPGA loads the values when the power is
turned on. Note what Wikipedia says about the cost of designing an ASIC. The
abstract engineering functions are not the difficult part: it is the fine-tuning
of the virtual circuit to deliver the function. None of that cost would be
incurred during the conjuring of the abstract engineering functions. How novel
and useful are the engineering functions?
The patent that Motorola
released to the ITU and the IEEE under FRAND terms for H264 does not define the
virtual logic circuit needed to deliver the function in the ASIC or FPGA. It
just defines the function of the circuit.
No matter what real world
electrical, hydraulic mechanical or other engineering system is used to
implement the patented functions, the system infringes upon the
functions.
If one realises the electrical functions using vacuum
tubes and selenium rectifiers, one still infringes on the electrical functions
in the patent.
If one realises the electrical functions using a program
in a computer, everything changes. The actual logic executed by the processor
has to be programmed using a mathematically valid computer programming language.
The programmer does not know the actual codes executed by the processor, but
there is a mathematical correlation between what he writes and what the
processor does.
As the report puts it, Microsoft's
argument is basically: um you don't have an algorithm in here you seem to be
claiming any and all electronic devices that do this poorly described stuff with
no information on how to implement it.
It is abstract engineering
ideas not narrowed to an engineering environment. Fair point, Microsoft, but you
argue that stating a math algorithm that helps in implementing the engineering
function would rescue the patent from invalidity. However, the only time the
math algorithm implements the engineering function is when the invention is
programmed into a computer. The math algorithm does not implement the invention
in an ASIC or an FPGA. It would only help a math literate user of the relevant
computer tools to create the virtual circuit implementing the 'invented'
electrical functions.
My reason for boring you silly about this stuff
is to make a comment on the patent system (and not just the US patent
system).
A review of the above against U.S.C. 35, Sections 101 and 112
and the associated Supreme Court opinions shows that the invention is
non-statutory subject matter being abstract engineering ideas and not a machine
or process. In addition, no 'one' can be skilled enough in all of the
engineering arts that might be used to design an infringing machine from the
disclosures in the patent. In fact, there is insufficient disclosure to make
any infringing machine.
I feel sure that the equivalent patents
around the world are invalid for the same reasons even though the patent laws
will vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
There are no such
things as 'software patents'. The software is never patented. The Fraunhofer
Institute patented the mp3 algorithms around the world and they are deemed
infringed by the courts whether implemented by programming a computer, creating
the abstract idea of electrical logic in ASIC and FPGA design tools, or using
analogue operational amplifiers.
Oh, wait a minute, the mp3 algorithms
don't work on analogue signals. They only work by manipulating the digital
symbols representing analogue audio by encoding using the international CCITT
standards. Abuse of the patent laws is not restricted to the US or software or
computer devices.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 04:12 AM EST |
Thanks very much for covering this. In a way I am actually impressed by the
Judge's observations that this case is hubris with either party using the courts
as a commercial negotiating tool.
The judge has IMHO correctly rejected the "breach" claim by Microsoft
but at the same time rejected the ability for Motorola, for the time being, to
block Microsoft products. The latter would be unacceptable if the case were not
going to trial, which seems to be the case.
Basically he is holding in both parties in contempt (not in a legal sense) but
unfortunately, probably because Motorola has obtained an injunction in Germany,
has not thrown the case out with prejudice. In my opinion he should.
It is unfortunate that he cannot force both parties to negotiate (even if one
has indicated a willingness to negotiate) and so he believes that he has no
option but to hear the case, as will the higher courts when the final decision
is appealed.
But this is the problem with patents of this sort, whether they are FRAND or
"Design". Patents provide a commercial advantage and corporations are
under a duty to make full use of all tools, including the courts, to maximise
that commercial advantage just as corporations are under a duty to minimise
taxation. This is where morality and corporate duty separates and the result is
that all are damaged.
As the judge says this case is an expression of "extreme pride or
arrogance, often associated with the loss of contact with reality" of both
parties. If it were an individual they recipients would hang their head in shame
and so they should.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 07:20 AM EST |
Wow. The judge sounds less than pleased.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 03:51 AM EST |
THE COURT: Well, you know, when we talk about document language,
contract language, don't I need to know what patent is covered by what -- I'll
call them a convention, or an industry-standard
agreement.
THE COURT: I'm looking at the Letter of
Assurance for essential patents signed by Jonathan Meyer, senior vice president,
dated April 21st. I've come to the conclusion that it's 2005. His handwriting is
worse than yours and mine. And it says, "Patent Holder is prepared to grant a
license." There is no attachment to it.
MR. JENNER: That's probably an
IEEE version.
THE COURT: It is.
MR. JENNER: For the ITU
there are patents, for the IEEE there are not.
THE COURT: But for the
ITU you describe them as non-exclusive lists. Help me with that.
MR.
JENNER: The parties would negotiate and agree on a need for additional -- that's
the problem with judicial resolution of a term like this. I understand Your
Honor's difficulty in trying to understand what precise set of patents are we
talking about. The parties know that they're not talking about a precise set of
patents, they are talking about the ones that are listed. That's on the table.
But the parties appreciate that other patents may come along which are essential
for the benefit of the licensee, and they become included because they are
essential. There's no way for you to know that.
THE COURT: Let me ask you
this question, then. Is there any patent which is in dispute in this matter
before me that is not covered by either the ITU or the IEEE?
MR.
JENNER: Let me answer that one this way: To the extent that --
THE
COURT: I think yes or no would be a great answer.
MR. JENNER: Then the
answer has to be yes.
THE COURT: Well, here is what
is troubling me, Mr. Jenner. I'm looking at the ITU what I think is Exhibit 4,
Document 79. The operative language signed by a representative of General
Instrument Corporation, looks like a Mr. Bawel, B-A-W-E-L. He checks the box
that says, "The Patent Holder will grant a license," then the language
continues. "Will grant." In that context, it's mandatory. It says, "You will
grant."
Then I look at the IEEE, the same Letter of Assurance, or same
form Letter of Assurance signed in this case by Mr. Meyer, and it says, "The
Patent Holder is prepared to grant a license." Now, you make a big, big thing
out of the difference in the language here. And now when it serves both sides,
they kind of sweep that whole argument away and say, this is what it means. And
that's what's troubling me, the language changes.
I think you know
my view: neither the ITU nor the IEEE agreed contractual terms constituting a
meeting of the minds and an exchange of consideration. Neither the ITU patent
declaration nor the IEEE Letter of Assurance qualify as contracts and therefore
there can be no third party beneficiary.
The judge has decided
otherwise and has decided that, in his jurisdiction, there are third party
beneficiaries to the contracts. Further, those third parties are everybody in
the world. Now the judge has to determine the legal meaning of the language in
what he deems to be contracts.
The writing of the GPL was difficult
because it had to have the same meaning in every jurisdiction in the world. Even
though the Letter of Assurance and ITU declaration text are not intended as
contracts, they are, nevertheless, intended to have the same legal meaning
everywhere in the world in the same way as the GPL.
The third party
beneficiary concept does not appear in many legal jurisdictions. Even taken as
contracts, the global nature of the IEEE and the ITU language cannot be assumed
to encompass third party beneficiaries. Motorola made the specific point with
regard to the German injunctive action.
The judge is in error in his
interpretation of 'will grant' in the ITU wording to be a mandatory contract
condition. In fact, the latest wording is changed to more accurately reflect the
ITU's intention (bearing in mind that we are not talking about a legal
contract).2.
The Patent Holder is prepared to grant a license to an
unrestricted number of applicants on a
worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and
on reasonable terms and conditions to make, use and sell
implementations of the
above document.
Negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are
performed outside the ITU-T, ITU-R, ISO, or
IEC.
Also mark here __ if
the Patent Holder’s willingness to license is conditioned on Reciprocity for
the
above document.
Since the ITU documentation is not a proforma
contract, then it is correct to look to the latest text to establish the ITU's
intent. Further, the original declaration made it clear that the ITU would play
no part in the negotiation of the licence. The court conceded that the third
party beneficial term in the deemed contract was the preparedness to
issue a licence. The licence only exists after the closing of the negotiation
and the signing of the contract terms. That seems to be the judge's basis for
deciding there was no breach of contract.
The reciprocity section is
also relevant, here. It says (if there is a tick in the box - a strange element
in a contract!) that if the licensee is also a holder of an essential patent
listed in the standard, that the licensor is only willing to
licence if the licensee is prepared to licence its own patent in a reciprocal
licence deal.
The court discussed 'reciprocal' patent licences.
However, they were not discussing the named IEEE and ITU standard essential
patents. One of the portions is 802.11-I, had to do with new
security techniques. Finkelstein relates to new security techniques. Finkelstein
would relate to 802.11-I. Motorola did not submit a Letter of Assurance for
802.11-I. There is no LOA covering Finkelstein, even though Finkelstein would be
considered in the 802.11 patent. So that's a wrinkle. There may be other patents
like that that we're not litigating at this point that fall into a similar
wrinkle.
So, a standard essential patent not covered by a LOA
FRAND agreement. Then there are what the court referred to as worthless,
industry-essential patents like the MPEG LA pool for H264.
THE
COURT: Let me take you down another rabbit hole, then. You just used a phrase
that appears frequently in your pleadings, but is inconsistent with your
position, which is you said, "I'm going to value them," referring to Microsoft's
patents. Your position in the litigation is, you don't value the patents, you
value the product. I've run into this dichotomy --
MR. JENNER: We
value both. We value both. One of the things that would be given credit is the
patent portfolio that Microsoft would be willing to license back. If they have
valuable patents to license back, that's enormously important to Motorola. It
would decrease what it asks for.
The judge is not talking about
just FRAND agreements in this case: he also has to consider standard essential
patents that are not formally included in an IEEE FRAND agreement and a bunch of
MPEG LA litigation pool patents that are priced at 'as much as the market and
patent holder can bear'. He has narrowly interpreted international LOA and
declarations under US law and used that to declare them contracts. Is he really
going to try and put a cash value on this mess? Is he really intending to throw
the Google - MPEG LA extortion pool into this judgement?
THE COURT:
Okay. And I'm going to put words in your mouth now. You're agreeing that you
don't know a court that's done it in this context. But you don't disagree that
that's a fairly common procedure in courts supplying missing terms in
contracts.
It sounds as though he is! Towards the end, he is very
critical of both sides for arrogantly forcing him to settle a purely commercial
dispute instead of being reasonable and coming to a settlement. I think that he
showed arrogance in disregarding the sovereignty of foreign legal jurisdictions
and the global nature of standard setting organisations' participation
agreements. His failure to distinguish between world standards and US industry
standard patent pools has dragged him down this particularly surreal rabbit
hole.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|