Here's a twist in the patent wars. A federal jury in Pittsburgh in late December ordered chipmaker Marvell Technology Group Ltd. to pay nearly $1.17 billion--yes, with a "B"--after it lost a patent infringement case brought by Carnegie Mellon University. The award is one of the largest ever in a patent case, topping the $1 billion award Apple got against Samsung.
The size of the award is not the only striking thing about this case, although it probably wouldn't have received so much attention if it hadn't been for the stratospheric figure.
Peoples intelectual property should be respected and paid to use.
If willfull stealling is proven.
Creaters wronged and that took time to ask for payment and blown off should compensated. The stealing party should be forced to pay extra damages also for court cost above infringment amount.
Stealing is thievery, period, and needs too be have enforcment means.
I have glanced through the patents. They are about calculating the branch metric in viterbi decoding. Didnt understand the exact advantage of the proposed system. But having worked in similar areas(Wireless PHY design) I can confidently say, there are atleast a 100 other ways of doing the same thing. Not something very unique IMO.
Most of the maths you see in that patent is from textbook and not invented by CMU.
"I suspect the Jury might consist of total idiots". The juries are required to be idiot. They have to be regular people without tech knowledge to cause biases. That is the requirement of the US law system. We can imagine the juries for such patent cases are mostly local old ladies and soccer moms. The keywords are "They should not have any STEM background."
Lots of knee jerk speeches without much substance here. Has anyone even looked at the patent involved? This isn't some overly broad patent but a very specific patent with detailed mathematical algorithms.
Having known someone who claimed that a certain company starting with M partnered with his company then stole all the IP and built it themselves, resulting in many lawsuits he went broke trying to right the wrongs, I wouldn't be so quick to fly off at the handle and make gross generalizations about patents in this case.
Selinz, wilful infringement means learning a competitors invention and deliberatly copying it, other than plain infringement, which means coming up with a similar idea independently later in the day. Both cases are infringement, of course, but for wilful infringement you can claim triple damages.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.