Wisconsin-Madison sues Intel for patent infringement
Correction, 12:50 p.m. PST: This blog initially misstated the name of the group that filed suit against Intel. The group is called the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
Forget the patent troll. Bring on the patent badger!
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation sued Intel on Wednesday for patent infringement, charging that the Core 2 Duo infringes on a patent granted to University of Wisconsin at Madison researchers in 1998 for a processor design that can break instructions into separate strands for more efficient processing. (Thanks, Engadget.)
Bucky Badger's used to shaking up the Big Ten, but now he's going after Intel.
(Credit: University of Wisconsin-Madison)The patent covers a method in which certain instructions that would normally have to wait for other instructions to finish processing before they can move forward can be processed in part while waiting for the other tasks to finish. It's like if you're waiting for someone to finish a report because you need their data to complete your own, but you go ahead and get started because you have a pretty good idea of what their data is going to conclude. It's a bit more complicated than that, of course, but prediction works very well in modern microprocessing, especially in processors with multiple cores.
In a press release, WARF said it tried to get Intel to license the technology back in 2001, but the company wasn't interested. Intel has also "aggressively marketed" this type of technology with its Core 2 Duo promotions, according to WARF.
I think that's referring to what Intel calls Intel Wide Dynamic Execution (click for PDF), which Intel says "improves execution speed and efficiency, delivering more instructions per clock cycle. Each core can complete up to four full instructions simultaneously."
An Intel representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin-Madison claims the fierce Bucky Badger as its mascot.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom.
Institutions use US-protected Trademarks, that in many instances
are Registered and Property of private companies. Apparently they
seem to see value from it somehow. Even without paying, or at the
least, asking permission to use it on their web sites, published
papers, their 'own' research projects from the rightful owner.
Can't have it both ways, now can we?
I don't think your argument is valid. Simply because some people plagiarize homework or research papers that Intel has no responsibility to license technology developed by a university.
It's main claim to fame is Warfarin, a blood thinner for heart
patients also used in rat poison. It's made them a fortune over the
years.
Go Badgers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Alumni_Research_Foundation
In the suit, WARF claims that while its application for a patent on the technology was pending, one of its inventors met with Intel and offered to discuss licensing it for use in future Intel products. Instead, the company incorporated the patented technology into its products, including the Core 2 Duo processor, and has refused to obtain a license from WARF. The research foundation also claims that Intel has aggressively marketed the benefits of this invention as a feature of its Core 2 technology."
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=4526
infringment by Intel. Intel referenced the university patent in
later patents they filed covering various minor implementation
details deriving from the earlier university patent, and used the
university patent language in chip documentation. The
university tech transfer office was shocked by Intel's response to
licensing discussions ... basically six years of threats and
stalling. In the end the patent was purchased by a well-known
patent "front corporation" which licenses IP to its industry
investors (many big names, including Intel) without royalties.
Very disillusioning experience. I applaud WARF for taking on a
very tough and unscrupulous legal department; most academic
entities don't have the bankroll or fear the collateral fallout of a
straight-up patent lawsuit.
Simply executing instructions in parallel that can be executed in parallel is not new-- I did those sorts of thing as an undergraduate years ago, though it was certainly simpler than what Intel is doing in its processors, I am sure. Nonetheless, parallel execution has been studied by lots of people over the years.
The real question is whether Intel did exactly what the patent claims. I would certainly not want to see Intel pay for a patent that it does not infringe at every step of the way, given the millions of dollars the company spends on its own research on the topic.
Is WARF somewhat of a patent troll? I'd hate to think that a school would be a patent troll, but it certainly looks like it in this case. But, who knows?
here let me try some unfounded crazy claims.... it's entirely possible that ALL of Intel's technology was gathered unscrupulously just as this may have been.
- Some nice patent searching
-
by dsarokin
February 10, 2008 6:00 PM PST
- There's an awfully nice piece of patent searching detective work at this Google Answers site:
-
Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=450081
Finding a patent by date
The researcher tracks down an old patent with a minimum of information. I thought folks would appreciate being able to check it out.
David