Breaking News
Blog

Marvell ordered to pay $1.2 billion in patent case

Blog
3/12/2013 06:29 PM EDT

 25 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
eewiz
User Rank
Author
re: Marvell ordered to pay $1.2 billion in patent case
eewiz   3/15/2013 4:47:01 AM
NO RATINGS
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. http://www.google.com/patents?id=SS8JAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=KKQLAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

green_is_now
User Rank
Author
re: Marvell ordered to pay $1.2 billion in patent case
green_is_now   3/15/2013 11:50:39 AM
NO RATINGS
tO GET TREBLE DAMAGES

green_is_now
User Rank
Author
re: Marvell ordered to pay $1.2 billion in patent case
green_is_now   3/15/2013 11:59:05 AM
NO RATINGS
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.

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Marvell ordered to pay $1.2 billion in patent case
resistion   3/16/2013 1:13:13 PM
NO RATINGS
CMU's name was used in Mean Girls 2 (appropriate?). I wonder how much they were paid for that.

eewiz
User Rank
Author
re: Marvell ordered to pay $1.2 billion in patent case
eewiz   3/19/2013 9:16:32 AM
NO RATINGS
SEO-ing your website?

<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed