Intel sued for Core 2 Duo patent infringement by the University of Wisconsin

[villa1n]

"Although Intel's mighty proud of the Core 2 Duo, it looks like the chip wasn't all home-grown -- a lawsuit filed today by the University of Wisconsin claims that the processor infringes on patented technology developed by one of its professors. Back in 1998, CS department chair Gurindar Sohi presented some of his developments relating to instruction level parallelism to Intel and offered to license them, but got nowhere -- yet the same tech is in the Core 2 Duo, according to the lawsuit. For its part, Intel says it's been talking to the Badgers for over a year now, and that it hasn't evaluated the complaint -- which it might want to do in short order, since UW's asking for the court to halt shipments of the Core 2 Duo in addition to monetary damages and legal fees." - src engadget.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo-patent-infringement-by-the-universi/

This isnt sounding too good for intel.

[Xope_Poquar]

Hmm, you'd think Intel would have hired him if he was the real deal. Who knows what other ideas he could have brought?

There's so many times people say "I thought of that way before it came out" and it angers me. But if he really did propose the idea to Intel then I have to ask why Intel didn't give him a fat check, especially if the idea was already patented?

[n00b 0f l337]

Its possible Intel was already developing the idea ;)

[Zytek_Fan]

Just another dumbass trying to cash in on the success of others :rolleyes:

[zanzabar]

Hmm, you'd think Intel would have hired him if he was the real deal. Who knows what other ideas he could have brought?

There's so many times people say "I thought of that way before it came out" and it angers me. But if he really did propose the idea to Intel then I have to ask why Intel didn't give him a fat check, especially if the idea was already patented?

when students or professors or lab people make something the university owns it not the individual, so its wisconsons university is trying to profit not the guy himself

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Its possible Intel was already developing the idea ;)

Doesn't matter if they dont hold the patent.

[ghost101]

Imagine what people's comments on engadget would have been if the university was a chinese or french one. Irrelevant but i wonder if people would defend the university at all.

[[XC] gomeler]

It all depends on who patented the concept first and how well each respective patent holds up to scrutiny. Drawing the ire of Intel isn't something a university would want, especially if they have any sort of computer engineering program so it would be a much better solution to solve it amicably outside of court.

[DShankar]

Just another dumbass trying to cash in on the success of others :rolleyes:

Wow, that's pretty ignorant of you dude. :shakes:

These are brilliant professors who came up with ideas and methods and Intel ignored them. Intel implemented their ideas without giving the professors/UWM credit.

It's more than a freakin "I did this first, gimme money" thing. It's a matter of crediting/paying for use. Without that, our whole patent/IP system breaks apart.

[DShankar]

Its possible Intel was already developing the idea ;) All that matters is who got the patent first...

[Yukon Trooper]

He'll probably just get paid off if the case gains any headway.

[JumpingJack]

Patent trolls..... they are probably suing over the shared L2 cache or operation fusion.... they would also need to sue AMD since AMD uses the same instruction level parallism approach.

EDIT: Here it is:

The method patented by the researchers covers certain instructions that would normally have to wait for other instructions to finish processing before they can move forward, which means they be partially processed while waiting for the other tasks to finish. The method takes advantage of the multi-core processor's ability to predict instructions.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/University-sues-Intel-for-patent-infringement/0,139023166,339285744,00.htm

So it is memory dismbiguation ... again, it would also affect AMD.

[JumpingJack]

All that matters is who got the patent first...

This is true, it does not matter when/who had the idea, it matters when and who filed the claim.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Professors are the people that are not good enough to work for Intel. I doubt the university did anything that had not already been done by someone else.

Haha, Thanks for that. Needed a dumb post to laugh at.

[DShankar]

Professors are the people that are not good enough to work for Intel.

[citation needed]

I just don't believe that, some people prefer to teach rather than go into the industry. What makes them 'not good' enough? I mean, some people who have worked in the industry return to teach/lecture/demo whatever at universities.

[DShankar]

Haha, Thanks for that. Needed a dumb post to laugh at.

1+. :rolleyes:

Although in retrospect, was he kidding?

[tbone8ty]

"its a bad idea until we steal it"

[Zytek_Fan]

Wow, that's pretty ignorant of you dude. :shakes:

These are brilliant professors who came up with ideas and methods and Intel ignored them. Intel implemented their ideas without giving the professors/UWM credit.

It's more than a freakin "I did this first, gimme money" thing. It's a matter of crediting/paying for use. Without that, our whole patent/IP system breaks apart.

What if Intel was simultaneously working on the same thing? How would it be decided?
I'm sure Intel is just going to give them a cash settlement...
And why now? Why didn't they sue when Core 2 was released. It makes absolutely no sense on their part if all they want is credit for the patent. It's pretty clear they want money.


And how many times have we seen patent infringement suits filed in the past year? It's getting rather ridiculous and it just seems to be a trend.

[JumpingJack]

And how many times have we seen patent infringement suits filed in the past year? It's getting rather ridiculous and it just seems to be a trend.

Yes, this is becoming a problem.

[DShankar]

What if Intel was simultaneously working on the same thing? How would it be decided? Sure they're working on the same thing..but who ever gets it finished first/patents it first, gets the $$. In this case, it appears to be the professor.


And why now? Why didn't they sue when Core 2 was released. It makes absolutely no sense on their part if all they want is credit for the patent. It's pretty clear they want money.
Read the part about how Intel and the university have been in communications for over a year now. Core 2 was released on July 27th, 2006. 1 year = July 27th 2007. February 2008 = more than 1.5 years.
Basically, they have been in contact from almost the time that Core 2 was released. It's ideal to talk and do this privately rather than going to court immediately. Therefore, they have been talking for awhile..now with the talks going nowhere, it's time to take it to the courts.


And how many times have we seen patent infringement suits filed in the past year? It's getting rather ridiculous and it just seems to be a trend.

Yeah well maybe companies shouldn't be cutting corners with patents? I hate it myself when good companies get hit with massive bills due to infringements but legally, the companies were wrong.

[zanzabar]

its far to easy to patent things that can only be done one way and are used for years then sued for when a company makes money from it

NV sued ati over a ramdac interface that they got from 3dFX
AMD was sued by ibm for something in the IMC
sony for organic disks with blue ray

its just an over broad patent in all probability that covers something that is needed and is developed on the own of the individual comanies

[RAMMAN]

halt shipments of core 2 duo? they have got to be kidding right?

[MentholMoose]

And why now? Why didn't they sue when Core 2 was released. It makes absolutely no sense on their part if all they want is credit for the patent. It's pretty clear they want money.

From the article:

... Intel says it's been talking to the Badgers for over a year now ...

It sounds like UW and Intel were negotiating since about the time when the Core 2 Duo was released. The negotiation probably failed, and now UW is suing.

[DShankar]

halt shipments of core 2 duo? they have got to be kidding right?

I must agree, that part is ridiculous. Obviously, Intel would settle this before it gets to that stage.

[tommyshango]

u gotta be kiddin me with this entire post. are you even serious that you would believe that a major corporation wouldnt rip off a uw professor? you dont think a person with considerable intelligence and backing with substantial credentials shouldnt have more merit than some stupid ass american corporation.. whats wrong with you ? christ.. is america getting this bad that you seriously believe corporate BS before you believe an honest hard working intelligent individual? do you really think this is about the money? is it because hes from wisconsin and we backwards people dont think that far ahead even though we have some of the best public universities there are? serioiusly stop bashing and use your heads. its sad.

[Zytek_Fan]

I must agree, that part is ridiculous. Obviously, Intel would settle this before it gets to that stage.

That's why I think it's more about money.

[[XC] gomeler]

u gotta be kiddin me with this entire post. are you even serious that you would believe that a major corporation wouldnt rip off a uw professor? you dont think a person with considerable intelligence and backing with substantial credentials shouldnt have more merit than some stupid ass american corporation.. whats wrong with you ? christ.. is america getting this bad that you seriously believe corporate BS before you believe an honest hard working intelligent individual? do you really think this is about the money? is it because hes from wisconsin and we backwards people dont think that far ahead even though we have some of the best public universities there are? serioiusly stop bashing and use your heads. its sad.

Actually no, I don't think many people in this thread think that, but perhaps you do? This isn't an issue about merit or intelligence, this is about money and legal practices. Even if I had invented the entire current x86 instruction set forty years ago, if I didn't patent it then my research was in vain. Patent anything and everything, it's what IBM does and it works for them.

[tommyshango]

i wasnt talking about what you said. i was talking about the blanket statements everyone else had to say about this. im sure he did patent it. im not a patent lawyer and im sure you arent either. im just sayin its compltely ridiculous anyone would take a corporation over an individual i dont care who is in the wrong .. the corporation is always wrong.

[metro.cl]

From the article:


It sounds like UW and Intel were negotiating since about the time when the Core 2 Duo was released. The negotiation probably failed, and now UW is suing.


Core 2 Duo has mora than a year, and also development is way longer than that.

[Speederlander]

What if Intel was simultaneously working on the same thing? How would it be decided?
Ummm...because the UW has the patent? ;)

And why now?
Did you read the article? They have been working on it for over a year.

It makes absolutely no sense on their part if all they want is credit for the patent. It's pretty clear they want money.
If they own the patent, damn right they want money. That's why we have patents at all.

[RAMMAN]

im just sayin its compltely ridiculous anyone would take a corporation over an individual i dont care who is in the wrong .. the corporation is always wrong.

wtf :confused:

[DShankar]

Ummm...because the UW has the patent? ;)


Did you read the article? They have been working on it for over a year.


If they own the patent, damn right they want money. That's why we have patents at all.

Lol your post is exactly structured like my post, arguing the exact points against Zytek_Fan. :yepp: Glad to know I'm not the only one who knows the truth.

@tommyshango: Most people on this thread now believe that the professor is right, there are just a few people who still believe that UWM is out for the money. Few people..not to mention any names..

[Speederlander]

.. the corporation is always wrong.

That's just as nonsensical as the comments on the other side of the issue automatically claiming the guy is a lying gold-digger. :shrug:

[RottenMutt]

Doesn't matter if they dont hold the patent.

not true, if you can produce documentation that you had it first, you can use it, regardless if someone else patents it.

[tommyshango]

sorry but.. major corporation vs individual in our day and age ? .. ill take the individual for the win thank you. i dont care whos wrong or right.. corporation can burn in hell.

[tommyshango]

oh and yeah like rotten said above.. i knew that. i actually checked into the patent process just a while ago and as long as you used it first you dont have to patent or trademark a thing .. its yours by nature.. which makes sense. too bad it doesnt work like that really.

[Zytek_Fan]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,781,752.PN.&OS=PN/5,781,752&RS=PN/5,781,752

I guess they need to sue AMD too.

OMG it's like another Transmeta lawsuit :rofl:

[RAMMAN]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,781,752.PN.&OS=PN/5,781,752&RS=PN/5,781,752

I guess they need to sue AMD too.

OMG it's like another Transmeta lawsuit :rofl:

they dont bother with amd because getting money out of them is like getting blood out of a rock...as in they dont have any.

[Zytek_Fan]

they dont bother with amd because getting money out of them is like getting blood out of a rock...as in they dont have any.

Intel is probably going to pay them a nice $150+ million lump sum.

[PhilDoc]

Funny, I know the pres of the University of Wisconsin. He's related to my ex by marriage. Funny guy, smokes like a freight train and still wears nicotine patches. He use to be head of the dept that does this type of research. I should call up my daughter and see if she can get some inside info, but I doubt he'd give out any. I doubt the professor is that interested in the money, probably wouldn't get much anyway, but I'm sure the University is. Still if it was their work, they deserve the credit and part of the profits.

[Speederlander]

If AMD simply lifted the Core 2 architecture and started making core 2's with their name on it, would Intel be justified in bringing suit? Likewise, why isn't the UW justified? The UW has the patent.

[Speederlander]

sorry but.. major corporation vs individual in our day and age ? .. ill take the individual for the win thank you. i dont care whos wrong or right.. corporation can burn in hell.

What individual? The University of Wisconsin is suing Intel not the professor.

[tommyshango]

im on the guys uw profs side...

[Zytek_Fan]

If AMD simply lifted the Core 2 architecture and started making core 2's with their name on it, would Intel be justified in bringing suit? Likewise, why isn't the UW justified? The UW has the patent.

It is a rather complicated situation.

The patent was filed in 1997. Which was long before dual core CPUs were even being looked at.
And you would think Intel would have investigated possible patent issues while/before working on Core 2...

[metachronos]

As a UW student, I'm torn.

[Speederlander]

It is a rather complicated situation.

The patent was filed in 1997. Which was long before dual core CPUs were even being looked at.
And you would think Intel would have investigated possible patent issues while/before working on Core 2...

It isn't complicated. Either the University of Wisconsin has a valid patent or it does not and Intel either violated that patent or it did not. It really is as simple as that.

Given how aggressively Intel defends its own IP I'm surprised anyone would reflexively take their side before the details of thing have even been made public, especially when the opposing party is a respected University. :shrug:

[Speederlander]

As a UW student, I'm torn.

What's to be torn about? Honestly. Either it's valid or it isn't. It shouldn't have anything to do with loyalty to one or the other.

[Zytek_Fan]

It isn't complicated. Either the University of Wisconsin has a valid patent or it does not and Intel either violated that patent or it did not. It really is as simple as that.

Given how aggressively Intel defends its own IP I'm surprised anyone would reflexively take their side before the details of thing have even been made public, especially when the opposing party is a respected University. :shrug:

They better hope it gets resolved quickly.
Intel's lawyers aren't exactly the nicest people.

[Speederlander]

They better hope it gets resolved quickly.
Intel's lawyers aren't exactly the nicest people.

I'm sure the UW is covered in the legal department. ;)

[Zytek_Fan]

I'm sure the UW is covered in the legal department. ;)

Yeah, but it could get ugly and expensive.
Which I'm sure is something neither party wants :up:

[RAMMAN]

Given how aggressively Intel defends its own IP I'm surprised anyone would reflexively take their side before the details of thing have even been made public, especially when the opposing party is a respected University. :shrug:

only one reason for that and its a pretty good one:uw wants core 2 duo,s removed from the market.
anything else is just intel fans defending intel.
basically its intel>uw>riaa.

[Tulatin]

Doesn't matter if they dont hold the patent.

Basically. And even if they do, i'm pretty sure Intel has enough of them to show that look, his patent is in fact, in breach of our own. Either way. Arguing with intel is like trying to take out MS or IBM as one man... Granted, they don't have the company lawyers that've been around for 50 yeras like IBM...

[Face]

Hmm, don't get too excited yet. I dug around and it seems to be one of they're favorite hobbies:

To date, the foundation has filed suit against the German firm Infineon on a chip used in wireless mobile phones and data modems, Samsung over chips in cell phones and DVD players and Sony for the main chip in the PlayStation 2. Each of those companies has agreed to settle with WARF out of court.


See the pattern there? "Each of those companies has agreed to settle with WARF out of court." .. I bet nothing is going to change this time around. that's why the halt shipments part is ridiculous, but I bet it's only for the headlines and to get Intel.. Umm, motivated.

They have also sued IBM few years ago over alleged charges of patent infringements.

WARF (The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) accused IBM of infringing on patented technology by marketing and selling two types of copper-based computer chips that are based on WARF's technology. A trial was scheduled for December prior to the settlement.

They reached out-of-court settlement as well, in 2005

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102399

http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2201

WARF declined to offer exact details about the settlement due to confidentiality agreements. This lawsuit is one of many filed by WARF for more than two years as part of its legal campaign to obtain royalties on product sales which use the technology.

It isn't complicated. Either the University of Wisconsin has a valid patent or it does not and Intel either violated that patent or it did not. It really is as simple as that.


True that. despite all the above it's all rather simple. I'm sure they going to settle this soon. just no need for all the headlines.

[Daveb2012]

:down:

[alfaunits]

It isn't complicated. Either the University of Wisconsin has a valid patent or it does not and Intel either violated that patent or it did not. It really is as simple as that.
Not really, patents can be overturned. It requires proof of prior work, of course, etc.

[GMX]

its far to easy to patent things that can only be done one way and are used for years then sued for when a company makes money from it

NV sued ati over a ramdac interface that they got from 3dFX
AMD was sued by ibm for something in the IMC
sony for organic disks with blue ray

its just an over broad patent in all probability that covers something that is needed and is developed on the own of the individual comanies

link or 200% BS.

But its true, patents are getting ridiculous. I'm gonna patent the use of the 5th page in any book. Ohhhhhh Yeaaaah!

That's why I think it's more about money.

No its a strategy to prevent Intel brushing it off as something minor.

[v0dka]

It seems that fanboyism is not just related to the IT sector and/or fights with AMD, Intel fans also rush to the defence in other area's.

The facts.

- Patents are granted only when they are new (meaning impossible to be known to any average skilled person in the field) compared to the prior art.

- The subject matter also has to hold an inventive step, compared to the prior art. Which means it's generally not possible to patent something that logically follows from known subject matter (i.e. I have a hammer and a nail, lets patent hammering).

- Third, it has to be susceptible to industrial application. This one is pretty easy to do. Make your invention producable, and you have industrial application. (So although patents are generally only for technical subject matter, patents have been granted on toys too for example.)

The three material rules create a barrier for trivial inventions, or just mere discoveries. Every patent is reviewed by a patent office, which takes a year or more, to see if it is indeed patentable. So you have to assume, that this is a valid patent. However, patents that dont hold in court are granted on a regular basis. Where this one lies, we cant tell without very extended research. Jumping Jack, being the cpu guru that he is ;) already got some details on the technology - but I think its far too early to dismiss this patent as invalid. This is to the judge to decide. Maybe Intel will acquire a license beforehand, which would give the most benefit to both. Patent trials are rare here in my country, although Im not sure about the US.

Point of this post, stop bashing patents and people suing your favorite company. The patent system works fine, because there are checks and balances. And if some trivial patent does get through, have some faith in the judge.

No one would be bothered to invest in new inventions if everyone could just copy it. So OFCOURSE there has to be a financial reward if someone uses your truely patentable technolgy.

[Tulatin]

It seems that fanboyism is not just related to the IT sector and/or fights with AMD, Intel fans also rush to the defence in other area's.
So out of the woodwork for either the rampant AMD fan, or the occasional thread:banana::banana::banana::banana:ter then?

The facts.

- Patents are granted only when they are new (meaning impossible to be known to any average skilled person in the field) compared to the prior art.

- The subject matter also has to hold an inventive step, compared to the prior art. Which means it's generally not possible to patent something that logically follows from known subject matter (i.e. I have a hammer and a nail, lets patent hammering).

- Third, it has to be susceptible to industrial application. This one is pretty easy to do. Make your invention producable, and you have industrial application. (So although patents are generally only for technical subject matter, patents have been granted on toys too for example.)

The three material rules create a barrier for trivial inventions, or just mere discoveries. Every patent is reviewed by a patent office, which takes a year or more, to see if it is indeed patentable. So you have to assume, that this is a valid patent. However, patents that dont hold in court are granted on a regular basis. Where this one lies, we cant tell without very extended research. Jumping Jack, being the cpu guru that he is already got some details on the technology - but I think its far too early to dismiss this patent as invalid. This is to the judge to decide. Maybe Intel will acquire a license beforehand, which would give the most benefit to both. Patent trials are rare here in my country, although Im not sure about the US.
Assumably speaking, had their partent much use, why approach just Intel? The group has sued others before - it seems that's how they get all the money, but it raises a thought. Why are you trying to sell this to JUST Intel? What's wrong with Damit, Transmeta, Via, IBM? (apart from going after the latter before)

Point of this post, stop bashing patents and people suing your favorite company. The patent system works fine, because there are checks and balances. And if some trivial patent does get through, have some faith in the judge.
I would bash a little pissant research firm if they failed to sow their innovative seeds to any other company, VIA inclusive.

No one would be bothered to invest in new inventions if everyone could justcopy it. So OFCOURSE there has to be a financial reward if someone uses your truely patentable technolgy.
So uh, ever heard of CHINA before? Seems that patents work really well there, and considering how just about everything and a half has a (mostly) cheaply made doppleganger, i don't see the market sitting at a halt.

[v0dka]

So out of the woodwork for either the rampant AMD fan, or the occasional thread:banana::banana::banana::banana:ter then?

Did I step on your toes there buddy? Dont act like there's no sentiment involved in the reactions of some here. It's very obvious, and very funny to see. :)

Assumably speaking, had their partent much use, why approach just Intel? The group has sued others before - it seems that's how they get all the money, but it raises a thought. Why are you trying to sell this to JUST Intel? What's wrong with Damit, Transmeta, Via, IBM? (apart from going after the latter before)

You clearly fail to see normal politics concerned with this subject. Ever considered the fact that if one falls (and the biggest one as well) any other companies that you might have a claim towards will also fall? Besides, we dont know if any of them infringes on this tech, so your question is purely hypothetical.

I would bash a little pissant research firm if they failed to sow their innovative seeds to any other company, VIA inclusive.

What are you trying to say? That some "pissant reasearch group" will invest 100k in something, and sits on it doing nothing? Interesting business model. Ofcourse they try to sell it, it's their right to.

So uh, ever heard of CHINA before? Seems that patents work really well there, and considering how just about everything and a half has a (mostly) cheaply made doppleganger, i don't see the market sitting at a halt.

Right, lets give up protecting investement in innovation because someone doesnt. If I kill someone, do we have to make murder legal?

[saaya]

how can you guys be so quick to judge that guy as just trying to cash in?
he has kept this quiet for over a year, this doesnt sound like somebody looking for quick cash but a reasonable complaint.

[v0dka]

They dont. It's just the usual, fashionable patent bashing going.

People need to realise that without patents, and IP in general, we probably wouldnt have anything as advanced as we have today.

Copyright is a slightly different story, but that is way too far offtopic.

[Scubar]

The Uni has no chance of getting anywhere against a Giant like Intel anyway. They are just someone else trying to cash in like always.

[KeZzZu]

The Uni has no chance of getting anywhere against a Giant like Intel anyway. They are just someone else trying to cash in like always.

meet old trusty EU :/ they wont be happy when they're reading that law suit. ouch

[onewingedangel]

With a company the size of intel I would imagine that before implementing a feature they have thoroughly examined its patent status - and just because they haven't licenced this patent, doesn't mean they haven't got one that covers this feature. Thats where the patent system has a huge shortcoming, they allow patents that are far too broad and there can be multiple patents covering essentially the same thing if you wish to interpret them in that way.

[Speederlander]

Not really, patents can be overturned. It requires proof of prior work, of course, etc.

Which in that case would mean they didn't have a valid patent. Exactly what I stated. :shrug:

[jas420221]

Sheesh, I cant them stopping shipments.

I wonder why AMD isnt involved in this.

sorry but.. major corporation vs individual in our day and age ? .. ill take the individual for the win thank you. i dont care whos wrong or right.. corporation can burn in hell.You probably think we didnt land on the moon either... :shakes: :rofl:

You are fighting one extreme by being on the other extreme, that usually doesnt work out well. People are persueded by facts, not by extreme opinions with little merit. ;)

[Donnie27]

Sure they're working on the same thing..but who ever gets it finished first/patents it first, gets the $$. In this case, it appears to be the professor.

Read the part about how Intel and the university have been in communications for over a year now. Core 2 was released on July 27th, 2006. 1 year = July 27th 2007. February 2008 = more than 1.5 years.
Basically, they have been in contact from almost the time that Core 2 was released. It's ideal to talk and do this privately rather than going to court immediately. Therefore, they have been talking for awhile..now with the talks going nowhere, it's time to take it to the courts.

Yeah well maybe companies shouldn't be cutting corners with patents? I hate it myself when good companies get hit with massive bills due to infringements but legally, the companies were wrong.

The tech demo and information for Conroe was shown 2 years ago now. Intel gave all the info in Feb-06, need links? The same info and benchmarks most AMD fans call fake and Hype. It is a very large stretch to pick out a right or a wrong with such limited info or side with UW or Intel. Let's wait and see what goes down before we call the UW folks greedy or accuse Intel of cutting corners?

[Donnie27]

With a company the size of intel I would imagine that before implementing a feature they have thoroughly examined its patent status - and just because they haven't licenced this patent, doesn't mean they haven't got one that covers this feature. Thats where the patent system has a huge shortcoming, they allow patents that are far too broad and there can be multiple patents covering essentially the same thing if you wish to interpret them in that way.

Absolutely QFT!

[aMp]

One of the major complaints against the patent system isn't necessarily the fault of the system itself, but of the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Back in the 1990s, Congress mandated that the government run more like a business. Combined with the increasing importance of IP to the economy, and consistent underfunding of the PTO, that's led to the PTO issuing patents far too easily.

Really, their whole philosophy has gotten a little screwy. The PTO refers to applicants not as applicants, but as "customers". In other words, they see their job not necessarily as critically evaluating patent applications, but as facilitating the business of IP -- with predictable consequences.

[Zytek_Fan]

The tech demo and information for Conroe was shown 2 years ago now. Intel gave all the info in Feb-06, need links? The same info and benchmarks most AMD fans call fake and Hype. It is a very large stretch to pick out a right or a wrong with such limited info or side with UW or Intel. Let's wait and see what goes down before we call the UW folks greedy or accuse Intel of cutting corners?

Absolutely QFT!

Exactly.

[Power5]

Some of you seriously think that corporations like Intel or MS or AMD or IBM don't use patent information for their benefit? I am sure they decided that if a lawsuit was ever started, they would be able to pay off or win against the other side. Risk vs reward. They figured they would make enough money. They used an idea, but they put up the R&D for developing the idea to a marketable product. Even if UW wins, they wont be able to stop shippment, or take all the money that Intel has made. They will simply get their share of what the product is worth. I am sure Intel has way more money invested than UW. Intel may have figured that if it came back to bite them, it would not cost enough vs the capital investment needed to come up with a different solution.

[alfaunits]

Which in that case would mean they didn't have a valid patent. Exactly what I stated. :shrug:
NOT required. Proof of prior work is enough, not a patent.

[n91htmare]

seems like these kinda of claims pop up every here and there to cash in on big buck...

The request to halt shipments is just that.... In their thought process, it's more convenient and less damaging for Intel to just pay out and settle.
someones just trying to make a quick buck.

I hardly doubt that a multi-billion dollar corporation who's primary job is to engineer new products/ideas, would not go to the bottom of the earth to make sure they were not infringing anything and minimize this risk as much as possible.

[deathman20]

Heard about this last year for sure at least if not earlier. Definatly nothing new and actually I thought UW was sueing them at that time, not in "negotation talks".