Well I think that if the university has developed a technology using tax payer funded dollars and paid patent fees to get the innovation registered, they are entitled to demand licensing fees. What I absolutely don't agree with is design then patent then sit and wait until everyone has invested in using the technology AND THEN show up with the lawyers. They should have to as part of their patent application have to state what the license fees are. That way you can decide early on whether you want to pursue that technology or develop an alternative. Otherwise it's just another for of extortion. Also terms should be the same for all licensees, except for maybe qty discounts.
I don't think you should burden the supplier with any legal reporting responsibility. They aren't violating the patent. If they want to work with UNM to supply that information, they should be compensated, but the supplier would have to get permission from their customer first. Just like I wouldn't want Cobra to have to report me when I purchase a radar detector.
Not so fast, If UNM has already received agreement from Samsung and Toshiba what about the materials and equipment suppliers who sell material and equipment expressly for the purpose of doing double patterning. These suppliers need to have an agreement in place with UNM that prevents them from inducing to infringe the patent held by UNM and state that on the literature and any technical information they provide to a customer. Otherwise they are as guilty as those that violate the patent.
Seems to me that the UNM has not done its homework and so the wiser and more informed domestic players will not just agree to pay up. They have every right to challenge the patent and demand equal enforcement rather than being singled out.
@Slvr.Srfr- I agree with you and did not mean to imply otherwise. I'd like to emphasize that I do not know the details of the case nor am I familiar with the UNM patent or Intel's lithography practices. But if in fact Intel is using technology that is protected by the patent held by the University of New Mexico, by all means the university is entitled to licensing fees from Intel.
Intel is after all a very profitable company and if the technology patented by UNM is a contributing factor, the university should be compensated for its work.
I'm very interested to see how this plays out. Intel must assume it has a case, otherwise why not just license the technology? But it appears that both TSMC and Samsung acted pretty quickly to get a license after being confronted with a lawsuit.
From Editor's Note: "There's a new patent troll in town—one that is funded with taxpayer dollars. After going to court to compel Samsung and TSMC to take a license for its patented double-patterning lithography technology earlier this year, the University of Mexico (UNM) is aiming higher."
As much as I support freedom of information to better society, I find it difficult to accept that all "state-funded" research should essentially be given away for free (as is suggested by the editor).
Should the researchers not be credited for their work (and god forbid, dip into the billions of dollars of Intel's earnings)? Do universities not have the right to defend blatant infringement of their work, regardless of funding source?
Cool, university getting into legal revenue generation! ;-)...I know some engineering companies that laid off all engineering, hired a few attorneys and live off patents now...perhaps schools should follow, get rid off students, hire some attorneys, and...but wait, aren't university funded by state? ...fabless, engineeringless, educationless, isn't it fabulous?! Kris
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.