I'm still wondering does the UNM team approached Intel to actually review the patent and understand if they really used the technology for the double patterning. UNM will make a lot of money even if the licensing fee is small since the amount of Intel production is really huge.
I'm sure it is a financial decision. Must be a relatively cheap license. My prior company received notice from UNM that they were infringing on this patent. I reviewed the patent and advised "do not license". Not sure of the outcome.
It think that if our tax dollars are given to research, and that research proves fruitful, then taxpayers should be enriched. Many employers give a dollar for a patent, and employees continue working. UNM should expect the same.
In this case, we taxpayers gave money to UNM, then UNM sues (and wins) overseas users of that technology. Where in here did the taxpayer benefit? Where in here did it make U.S. jobs or even step up U.S. competitiveness?
UNM rakes it in on both ends. Give the good lawyers a cookie!
Come on, given the outcome of other licensees; TSMC and Samsung, University of New Mexico patent position seems to be a good one. Obviously there is a lot of Intel academic engineering knowledge in State of New Mexico from Intel operations there. And not all process IP belongs to Intel as a result of that location. Regardless of Intel evolving from University patented methods the foundation can remain. Everyone in this industry knows Intel is a common, recognized, acknowledged , judicially proven thief. Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy
Can anyone say, "University of California at Berkeley" and "SPICE" for beginners? This is not a new concept. I also fail to understand why anyone would say "License at the Federal Level"? State Universities may get federal funds, but the research is conducted locally, and should benefit the organization that conducts the research.