Intel Patents 'Multiplying Two Numbers'

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]ikefu[/nom]Patenting math seems like seems like a very bad and corrupt patent. You didn't invent the math, you just discovered it. How can you prevent other companies from multiplying numbers in one way or another. That's bad for the industry and bad for consumersNow, if you want to patent a particular circuit that uses said approach of multiplying the numbers. More power to you! You actually invented that and its yours by rights. But you need to patent the invention and not the discovery.Just because Newton discovered gravity doesn't mean he had exclusive rights to it and could sue anyone else who decided to use gravity to in their inventions.[/citation]

You're very badly confused. That's OK, but being self-righteous about it, not OK.

The effect of gravity happens all the time. Newton didn't figure out a new way to do it. He didn't find a way to use gravity that no one did.

Intel did not patent multiplication of numbers. They patented a way of doing it, which is more efficient. Processes can be patented, in fact, processes are the basis for most patents, if not all.

Intel has found a process that is very efficient in multiplication. If you found a process of extracting gold, or converting lead to gold, even though this matter already exists, you could go for a patent.

Patents were created for rewarding creativity, and new ways of doing things. There would be much less incentive to discover new ways of doing things were these discoveries not protected. It doesn't always work perfectly, but overall it has worked.

 

[Guest]

Oh yeah, well Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/

 

[pirateboy]

sickening

 

[eddieroolz]

I'm speechless that the US Patent Office would grant something like this.

I guess we need to send all those people back to the third grade.

 

[sabot00]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]I call BS on you being in software development. Unless you call working with Visual Basic or designing web pages as SD. Nobody with a clear understanding of software would make statements such as yours. The entire software industry operates on the concept that you can really only protect the building blocks of your application (algorithms). Nobody owns a patent on a word processor or spreadsheet. Microsoft would have several patents on underlying code in Word, however.[/citation]
I am in software development and I think you are stupid.
The algorithm in question (the Karatsuba algorithm), has been published since 1962, and has been improved upon by hundreds if not thousands of individuals.
Intel was founded in 1968.

 

[stoogie]

I patent shapes, i patent the number 4, i patent the color green, i patent the use of a muscle in your body, i patent your uneducated brain.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I patent patents!

 

[house70]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]You are truly clueless about software development.If I invent a new ingredient and use it to make tastier cakes, then I should be able to patent the formula to make that ingredient. Nobody can patent a cake.[/citation]
you are clueless about making a cake.
ingredients are not invented, they are there. The way you combine them and process them to get to the finite product (cake) is called a recipe, and that's what you can patent. Stop making stupid analogies if you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[moozoo]

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=OFJNAQAAEBAJ
AMD Patent for splitting up multiplication

 

[virtualban]

[citation][nom]house70[/nom]you are clueless about making a cake.ingredients are not invented, they are there. The way you combine them and process them to get to the finite product (cake) is called a recipe, and that's what you can patent. Stop making stupid analogies if you have no idea what you're talking about.[/citation]
So, I patent the way people type in text and display it on the monitor, (word processor, cake) and I don't patent the algorithms used to make it (ingredients).


[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]Using your logic no software should be allowed to be copyrighted or have a patent. No method for doing video/audio compression. No security algorithms. Not even a game, since all software, no matter what it does, can be broken down into mathematics.[/citation]
[citation][nom]schmich[/nom]And on the other side of the logic even 1+1 should be able to be patented then?[/citation]

My opinion, stupid as it might be, is to not let corporates and any company that is big beyond some degree have patents of any kind. All they invent can be reverse engineered by competition and used to make competing products.
Inventors of smaller companies can create patents from what they create, but for a limited time. The smaller the company, the longer the protection time. If by that time they have not managed to turn it into profit, the patent becomes GPL and everybody can use it to bring something new or competing. This way inventions can't stand hidden until someone comes out with something similar, for the inventor to sue as "stealing my idea". The protected inventions would be very few, easily recognized in comparison to thousands upon thousands of today's patents. Everything else would be general public license, and everything that starts from those GPLs would not be patentable even if they combine 1000 GPLs into one amazing fantastic final product. Big companies can protect their inventions by keeping it secret until finally releasing the product and having a head start upon the competition. This does not include just software. Smaller companies and individual inventors can try to sell their idea if the investment in producing it is not worth when the head start still can't compete with big corporations. Once the code becomes property of the big corporation, though, patent protection would be reduced by a lot (not made to zero as in the case of the invention by the very corporate, because the corporate inventions would be secret for long enough to come out as products, while the patented invention of a small company or individual would no longer be a secret).
This way we get
*incentive to still come out with new ideas, bot small or big companies
*less time and effort on lawyers and non beneficial to humanity activities
*better products that can use almost all the code-base without fear of stepping on some patent breach
*better chance of finished products out from big companies

This is just my view, though. I hope the pirate party in Europe manages to bring something similar into true practice.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]Stoogie[/nom]I patent shapes, i patent the number 4, i patent the color green, i patent the use of a muscle in your body, i patent your uneducated brain.[/citation]
None of these things are patentable by the basic rules. Did you post before taking 30 seconds to elucidate yourself on the matter?

 

[geossj5]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]You're very badly confused. That's OK, but being self-righteous about it, not OK. The effect of gravity happens all the time. Newton didn't figure out a new way to do it. He didn't find a way to use gravity that no one did. Intel did not patent multiplication of numbers. They patented a way of doing it, which is more efficient. Processes can be patented, in fact, processes are the basis for most patents, if not all. Intel has found a process that is very efficient in multiplication. If you found a process of extracting gold, or converting lead to gold, even though this matter already exists, you could go for a patent. Patents were created for rewarding creativity, and new ways of doing things. There would be much less incentive to discover new ways of doing things were these discoveries not protected. It doesn't always work perfectly, but overall it has worked.[/citation]


thank you... seriously some users on this board just read the title and start ranting just for the sake it

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]geossj5[/nom]thank you... seriously some users on this board just read the title and start ranting just for the sake it[/citation]
Please tell me where there is a comment forum that isn't all that.

 

[ProDigit10]

Yay! Get your online banking done now in 2048bit encryption!

 

[ericburnby]

[citation][nom]sabot00[/nom]I am in software development and I think you are stupid.The algorithm in question (the Karatsuba algorithm), has been published since 1962, and has been improved upon by hundreds if not thousands of individuals.Intel was founded in 1968.[/citation]
I love how people say "I'm in this business" and then make a comment that clearly shows they are not.

Intel did not use the Karatsuba algorithm - they used a variation of it. That's perfectly OK when getting a patent - improving upon or expanding an existing invention or idea. Your analogy is like saying that nobody can patent code in a spreadsheet program since Visicalc was the first spreadsheet and all people have done is improve upon it.

 

[virtualban]

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]I love how people say "I'm in this business" and then make a comment that clearly shows they are not.Intel did not use the Karatsuba algorithm - they used a variation of it. That's perfectly OK when getting a patent - improving upon or expanding an existing invention or idea. Your analogy is like saying that nobody can patent code in a spreadsheet program since Visicalc was the first spreadsheet and all people have done is improve upon it.[/citation]
What if I improve upon the same start as the patent holder, but without knowledge of the patent, and end up in the same result?

 

[gamerk316]

Using your logic no software should be allowed to be copyrighted or have a patent. No method for doing video/audio compression. No security algorithms. Not even a game, since all software, no matter what it does, can be broken down into mathematics.

And? I'd argue that they shouldn't be patentable, just like chemistry equations [medicin] shouldn't be patentable.

 

[ericburnby]

[citation][nom]house70[/nom]you are clueless about making a cake.ingredients are not invented, they are there. The way you combine them and process them to get to the finite product (cake) is called a recipe, and that's what you can patent. Stop making stupid analogies if you have no idea what you're talking about.[/citation]

I'd tell you to stop posting, but why should I when it's fun watching people on Tom's advertise publicly how stupid they really are? If you want to dig a hole I'll happily provide a shovel.

If you're making cakes you can patent a recipe, a machine you invented to make cakes or an ingredient. If you came up with an alternative to flour (created a new ingredient that didn't exist before) then you sure as hell can patent it.

My analogy is perfectly in line with software development, yours is not and again shows we have another person on Tom's who knows jack shit about software development. Your analogy would be akin to someone using the existing libraries in a development package and combining them to make a new program. My analogy is akin to creating a new algorithm to add to that library.

 

[stoogie]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]None of these things are patentable by the basic rules. Did you post before taking 30 seconds to elucidate yourself on the matter?[/citation]
lol its called sarcasm

 

[fazers_on_stun]

35 U.S.C. 101 states "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

Software per se is merely functionally descriptive material, not a "process" (aka method)" or a device or "machine" or other apparatus, an article of "manufacture" (i.e., man-made object as opposed to one naturally occurring, or "composition of matter" such as a new chemical compound, drug, etc. So software in of itself is not patentable subject matter, because by itself it is not "useful" nor does it fit any of the 4 patentable categories of invention.

It would have to be claimed as embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., stored in memory or a hard drive or CD or DVD, but not as a propagated signal such as over ethernet or wireless). Or the software could be claimed as a method (flowchart) being processed by a processor.

I'm sure the patent examiner did a pretty thorough prior art search before issuing the patent - don't jump all over the USPTO just over a stupid patent title - it's the claims that are legally enforceable in a court of law...

 

[fazers_on_stun]

My opinion, stupid as it might be, is to not let corporates and any company that is big beyond some degree have patents of any kind. All they invent can be reverse engineered by competition and used to make competing products.

Trouble with that idea is that sometimes it takes a massive R&D effort to bring about innovation. Take CPU design for instance. Where are all the small companies innovating in that field?

The mission of the US Patent Office is to help advance the leading edge of technology, by publishing patents so that anybody in the world can see how the inventors accomplished their improvement (which is what most patents are - improvement of previous designs). That in turn may inspire those "anybodies" to come up with further improvements. In return for disclosing the "what" and "how to" of their inventions, the inventors get a limited monopoly on the making and using of their inventions - typically 20 years from the date of filing their patent application. So that's the "quid pro quo" of the patent system - full disclosure of how to make and use the invention in return for 20 years limited monopoly.

If a big company like Intel couldn't get patents, then they would just resort to the old, time-tested corporate secret method and believe me, there are ways to obscure and make extremely difficult any reverse-engineering attempts. Then where would we be? Probably on the 80286 node...

 

[Skippy27]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]They're patenting a formula, not the concept....[/citation]

You want to copyright software? Feel Free.
You want to copyright the code used to create new features in that software? Feel Free.

But no "concept" nor mathematical algorithm should be patentable, regardless of where or how it is used. Now if you want to publish and name the algorithm, feel free.

 

[Skippy27]

There would be much less incentive to discover new ways of doing things were these discoveries not protected.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Some of the greatest inventions of humans came well before the greed of monetizing everything came into play.

There will always be people out there that want to make things better and are not seeking millions and billions of dollars to do it.

In my opinion, the single biggest problem with health care today, is that it has become such a large money machine. Health care would include doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and equipment makers. And not a single one of those things would cease to exist if every patent they ever owned was voided and no new patents were ever issued. People would still help people and chemist would still try to find cures because that is what drives them.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

What if I improve upon the same start as the patent holder, but without knowledge of the patent, and end up in the same result?

You would be infringing the patent holder's claims, and subject to legal action.

Patents are not like copyrights, where if you can 'clean-room' design the same idea and prove that you didn't copy the copyright holder's ideas, then you can get your own copyright. With patents, the first to patent takes it all, unless another inventor can show they actually invented it first (called an interference proceeding). And willful patent infringement can get treble damages, unlike copyright infringement, so that's why corporations go for patents instead of just copyrights.

IIRC in the 1980's, what was then the Polaroid corp. sued Eastman Kodak over a couple patent infringement issues, proved that Kodak did it purposefully, and was awarded something like $5 billion in damages. Makes the MPAA and RIAA look like pikers with their copyright infringement cases in comparison.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

There would be much less incentive to discover new ways of doing things were these discoveries not protected.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Some of the greatest inventions of humans came well before the greed of monetizing everything came into play.

There will always be people out there that want to make things better and are not seeking millions and billions of dollars to do it.

In my opinion, the single biggest problem with health care today, is that it has become such a large money machine. Health care would include doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and equipment makers. And not a single one of those things would cease to exist if every patent they ever owned was voided and no new patents were ever issued. People would still help people and chemist would still try to find cures because that is what drives them.

While that's a nice theory, unfortunately its the profit motive that drives our capitalistic society.

If some "equipment maker" spent tens or hundreds of millions improving say an MRI machine that gave much faster and accurate results than its predecessors, and there was no patent protection, how long do you think it would be before some offshore company (read: China) just copied the machine and undersold the equipment manufacturer because the Chinese didn't have to spend all that R&D capital?

Having an enforceable US patent would let that equipment manufacturer file a lawsuit against anybody who imported that cheaper machine into the US, and thus recoup their R&D expenditure. Without it, said manufacturer would face unfair competition and might go out of business..