Thanks for posting the number and links. I've heard patent trolls would often not even disclose the supposedly-infringing patent numbers, while trying to negotiate a settlement. I don't know if they still do that.
Yeah, we all pay for somebody having an artificial/forced upon monopoly of something.BTW, it's important to remember that we all pay for patent trolling in the form of higher prices. The costs pervade society, as each business has to pass on these costs to their customers.
Another favorite example is credit card networks (i.e. Visa and Mastercard). I sometimes wonder how much cheaper everything would be, if you could somehow magically purge society from all the "rent-seeking" that provides no real underlying value. Perhaps it would even be enough to drive an uptick in economic growth.
I think patents should be in effect as long as possible however I think the holder of said patents should have to provide products based on that patent instead of just holding it to wait and make money off a company actually using and providing products with said idea.I think it's wrong that patents from 2001 are still valid. The entire point of the patent system is for companies to share their inventions and further develop technology by allowing them a temporary monopoly. It was never meant to work as a long-term monopoly. This is clearly a patent troll, but the patents are not vague like some. They are very specific to the methods used during fabrication. That said, the only reason they are suing nVidia is that there is no way they can sue TSMC.
I'm not sure why people always think anyone protecting their IP is a patent troll. There is reason why its called Intellectual PROPERTY. When someone uses your PROPERTY without your permission, its effectively stealing. Also keep in mind that IP doesn't come cheap. It often takes a group of top researchers years to generate such IP, so the company that funded that research should get some payback for it. Even if a third-party company buys the IP, they still paid for it and should be allowed to generate some revenue from it. This is essentially the concept of investing, but on a technological level.Sounds like a typical money grab that some Companies do to make money, they try and file suit to see if they can get a settlement.
Doesn't work all the time though however when the Company tells them off and goes to Court.
Obviously if there was really anything real to it in the 1st place that could be upheld in court NVIDIA would have settled by now, it has been over 3 years already.
A variation on that would be to make them pay a renewal fee that's too high for patent trolls to simply sit on large numbers of patents. I believe there is currently a renewal fee, but I think it still might be rather low.I think patents should be in effect as long as possible however I think the holder of said patents should have to provide products based on that patent instead of just holding it to wait and make money off a company actually using and providing products with said idea.
I was speaking hypothetically. I don't know enough about semiconductors to say whether this is trolling, but I believe it might fall into a somewhat grey area.I'm not sure why people always think anyone protecting their IP is a patent troll.
I think we all understand that. But be careful about reading too much into the terminology. IP is a legal fiction created to mirror aspects of physical property. There are good reasons for it, such as to protect R&D investments, but it's truly an artificial framework, rather than anything intrinsic to the underlying information. This makes it more susceptible to abuse.There is reason why its called Intellectual PROPERTY. When someone uses your PROPERTY without your permission, its effectively stealing.
For every patent like that, there could be multiple patents that fail to meet the criteria of novel and non-obvious. I personally know of some junk software patents that were filed (and granted!) on some techniques already in common use. I know of another case where a badly-named but truly novel invention was rejected by a USPTO examiner who clearly took a cursory look, did a quick web search, and incorrectly decided that it was insufficiently novel.Also keep in mind that IP doesn't come cheap. It often takes a group of top researchers years to generate such IP,
Are you claiming that there are no abuses of the system and that it's working perfectly, as is?These large companies like Samsung, Intel, etc, are founded and exist based on IP, and if anyone infringed on their patent they would immediately respond (think of the high profile lawsuits we have seen over the years).