What is Digg?158 Comments
- bjkrautk, on 02/08/2008, -8/+52Go Badgers!
- Hegemony, on 02/08/2008, -2/+32"UW's asking for the court to halt shipments of the Core 2 Duo in addition to monetary damages and legal fees."
In other news angry computer nerds picket UW campus leaving only after it got too sunny out. - h3r2on, on 02/08/2008, -1/+30Better buy those C2D now! Before they get the injunction on them! Go Bucky!
- Ajajadude, on 02/08/2008, -0/+26Hardly. They'd just hike up the tuition because they invented the Core 2 Duo.
- SpykerSpeed, on 02/08/2008, -3/+27Patents need to exist in order to give people financial incentive to invent stuff and invest in new businesses. But I think they should only be awarded to people who've actually manufactured prototypes and put their money where their mouth is. It's annoying when people do nothing but file a ton of patents on things they've never actually made.
- dsmx, on 02/08/2008, -13/+34I'm increasingly of the opinion that patents should be outlawed all they do is slow down technological developments. At the least they need to reduce the time there applicable for because all they do at the moment is get in the way of progress.
- r3z0nate, on 02/08/2008, -5/+24Intel is almost putting AMD out of business with stolen technology. It serves them right.
Don't apologize if you are from Wisconsin, if anything be happy because the money from a victory would either help taxes or help the educational system. - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -4/+23Rumors of AMD's demise may yet turn out to have been premature.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -6/+24I have a patent on that saying. You'll be hearing from my lawyers soon.
- TheOther1, on 02/08/2008, -3/+18Infringement Inside (TM)
- EvilLordBanana, on 02/08/2008, -0/+15they haven't filed a lawsuit yet because intel was jerking them around for a while, read
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+16Sounds like you know absolutely zilch about patent law, son. Without patent protection, no one has anything to create a damn thing because it's only a matter of time before their idea is ripped off by someone with low overhead/manufacturing costs. Patents incentivize invention. No patents = no invention.
And the VAST majority of patents are never litigated. If you have a beef, take it up with with USPTO and the patent prosecutors who are supposed to iron out the details ex ante. - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+15Go back to youtube.
- squaat, on 02/08/2008, -0/+13This is an interesting one. According to the article the Prof showed intel his ideas and they used them without his permission. If true then this one is a tad different from the usual patent troll.
- fety, on 02/08/2008, -3/+15Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger
Mushroom Mushroom!
.............
...aaa snake aaa snake!!!
Snaaaaaake snaaaake ooohhh it's a snaaaaake! - thesmrt12004, on 02/08/2008, -0/+12why does it seem that the UW Schools are on Digg every week? Go Badgers!
- aliengoods, on 02/08/2008, -0/+11Considering the number of Core 2 Duo's on the market, this could be quite a boom for the UW schools. Maybe I'll be able to get my graduate degree for free!
- njbraun, on 02/08/2008, -1/+12I had Prof Sohi for an architectures class and let me tell you, he is one of the most intelligent profs I've ever had. It makes perfect sense that he helped out if not single handedly created this tech.
As a side note, Sohi may be a genius but the guy will put you to sleep in his lectures. He also has a bit of an odor... - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -2/+13That's complete *****. 99.99% of what patents do is incentivize invention. 0.01% of what they do is "get in the way" of technological progress. You're making a horribly uninformed judgment based on a tiny minority of cases that end up getting litigated while you fallaciously ignore the vast majority that do not. Good luck finding a useful device that would exist but for patent law.
- Jook, on 02/08/2008, -0/+11Dude, did you even RTFA?
"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" - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+11Often times the practical utility of an invention can't be exploited until further technological developments take place. I might come up with a new mechanism for manufacturing semiconductors that is prohibitively expensive using current technology but that might become cost-effective in ten years. Your rule gives me no incentive to research any such technology because the fruits of my labor will be filched by some high tech conglomerate that can "actively pursue production" at a snail's pace until 2025 when it feels like putting it to use.
Anyway, what's so evil about allowing inventor's to charge royalties for the use of their inventions? Most high profile patent litigation boils down to a he-said, she-said argument anyway. One side claims the other's method/design infringes, the other side claims it doesn't. Your rule doesn't cure that problem at all. - zediker, on 02/08/2008, -2/+12exactly! in order to keep a patent you should have to prove that you are activly pursuing production, otherwise you should loose your patent in 6 months with no chance to pick up rights for at least 1 year.
- DeFex, on 02/08/2008, -2/+11AMD started making x86 by copying intel processors.
- emt1451, on 02/08/2008, -0/+9U of Wisconsin always = Madison.
- Procure, on 02/08/2008, -1/+10lol, it was sunny today after snowing 18 inches here yesterday...
- Elranzer, on 02/08/2008, -2/+10Alright so where can I buy these wonderful University of Wisconsin brand processors that supposedly were going to compete with Intel? I mean, that's why they patented CPU technology, right??
- OstrakonX, on 02/08/2008, -1/+9Wow, a tech company being dishonest?
Intel and AMD both lie about performance. They use special compilers to optimize their code for benchmark tests.
Stealing this guy's design, though? I'm sure he'll get his money. - LordVance, on 02/08/2008, -0/+7Apparently you are afraid someone patented a sense of humor. Don't worry, you can take a joke and not infringe on anything...
- njbraun, on 02/08/2008, -0/+7Here ya go chief -- Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer -- http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5781752-fulltext ...
- dt40, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Last I checked, radio was invented more than 20 years ago. Any patent on the basic concept would have LONG AGO expired.
- BoneStamp, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6You're probably using at least 10 things right now that are all because of academic institutions patenting technology.
- chingy1788, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5well the uni/professor did approach intel showing the tech to them
i spose intel didnt respond and now just went along without honoring him in anyway
I think in this case intel is kinda asking for it - whateverisme, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Did you read TFA? Wisconsin approached Intel once they found out Intel implemented the technology that Wisconsin developed and demonstrated to Intel. Intel ignored Wisconsin. Wisconsin sues.
- fkr3, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5http://warf.org/news/news.jsp?news_id=221
Actual link - lynndombrowski, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Just some thoughts...
a.) Intel ripped the Professor off. (The professor offered to license the patent to them ... I think.)
b.) the point of Intellectual Property law is to *encourage* people to create things. - CoolWind, on 02/08/2008, -2/+7You mean because AMD doesn't use instruction level parallelism?
- eOgas, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5University of Wisconsin generally refers to Madison....unless you're a loser that likes to point out that there are a bunch of schools in the UW system.....oh, wait.
- johnstar, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6My warez are stolen, now my proc. AWESOME!
- LordVance, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Intel won't allow that to happen. Even if they lose and need to pay out big to UoW to continue churning out c2d processors, they will not hike the price up much at all (if any). It would simply give AMD too big of a leg up if they couldn't be competitive in pricing.
- UnterDenLinden, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5If they win, then obviously Wisconsin was wrong, and there are no problems. So there really only is trouble if Intel loses.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4That and the fact that royalty fees = more expensive C2Ds = instant market niche for AMD's second tier product.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5If UW has a claim it's because they already filed a patent, nimrod. The burden is on Intel to make sure its designs don't infringe on any existing patents before it goes forward. It's not UW's responsibility to police every ***** semiconductor design on the planet to ensure that they don't infringe its patent. I defy you to present a reasoned argument why that should be the legal rule.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4How many times have you purchased a product for $0.99 instead of $99 because the inventor didn't have to have production facilities ramped up and ready to go before he filed the patent? The answer is: a hell of a lot more often than you've read about RIM v. NTP or whatever.
In any case, I don't have to commercially pursue my patent to make use of it, I just have to charge royalty fees to anyone who does want to make use of it. And there's a market for that sort of thing. You know, markets, the things that establish the real world value of things?
As far as Microsoft is concerned, it's still the case that were it not for patents they would not have produced their software AT ALL because all the $millions they invested into R&D would be wasted the minute some 14 year-old hacker reverse engineers their code. And if you think MS software is completely useless, there's nothing about the current patent regime that prevents you or some Linux fanboy from producing a superior product. - neocognitism, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Intel stealing others' intellectual property? Say it isn't so, Israel!
- KibibyteBrain, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3He patented the process of converting non-pluralizable statements into plural form for the purpose of cuteness and/or humor and/or another emotional ends: very patentable.
Anything can be patented in effect, as anything humans can produce must come from a process, and processes are patentable. Patents are a joke, but a very funny joke if you happen to own some. - SteveMax, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Yep, this is not your ordinary patent troll. The guy developed a parallelism system, went to Intel offering to license it, got kicked out, and then Intel comes out using the EXACT same system on their processors (without paying him for what he showed them). This at least looks like a fair patent claim, the guy is suing for the exact reason why the patent system exists and the only fair reason for IP laws to exist.
- neutrascrub, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4it's UW-Eau Claire, it means clear water.
- diggduggjoe, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Patents are needed, especially in the case of a brilliant idea by a low income inventor. He will need to to find capital. This case is a poor example of the "trouble with patents". It is clear the professor was the initiator since he showed Intel. Intel has been dragging their feet over a settlement, so the UW sues. That is entirely understandable. This is not some patent troll with a trivial patent that conflicts with an independently discovered idea. Party B spoke to party A and party A used the technique.
- rakous, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Exactly, it has nothing to do with right or wrong just profits. Intel has the power to win and that is a sad fact, I should have been more clear in my earlier post.
- Myztry, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3You are giving a ROI argument as if Universities are privately/self funded business.
'The People' pay the taxes which funded the research therefore 'The People' should own it.
Academic research should go straight to Public Domain. -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is