If Marvell simply responded to reasonable request by CMU to pay a justified, reasonable royalties of $200K, this would not have happened. They pay the price of arrogance! Industry beware of stealing university property!
It isn't the dollars per patent that should guide the damages, it is the losses suffered by the inventor and the undeserved profits earned by the infringer. What volume of sales did Marvel make using the CMU intellectual property? I'd think this would be a central part of the lawsuit and the basis upon which the award would be made.
As companies spend their resources prosecuting and defending patent lawsuits, or paying the Danegeld (tribute) to avoid lawsuits, they have less and less money to fund engineering. As the engineering jobs vanish, there won't be any need for more STEM students. Problem solved!
Evenif Marvel infringed the patents, 1.2B for 2 semi patents is too high. The Pittsburgh jury may be smoking crack before the verdict. The numbers are totally unheard of in similar cases,even if you add a reasonable onetime payment and royalties for all the chips Marvel sold with this. Oh wait, if jury can manage to get CMU a free 1.2B, they can provide free education and scholarships to their family, friends and relatives! Why cant patent fights be in neutral locations instead of someone's homeground?
You didn't count the negative impact to the Marvell employees, including those CMU graduates hired by the Marvell. Patent war is a zero-sum game. It wont create wealth, it just redistribute the wealth. The settlement of the lawsuit very likely will be in the unit of M, not B.
Agree, this certainly calls for an expert to examine the claims. I find it rather unusual to get a patent on an obscure theoretical idea if that is what really happened (as Marvell claims). It would be great to hear from the two professors comment on this BUT they may have a gag order from the university.
I second the motion that we get a little more info on the tech issues.
BTW: If the $1.2B goes to the endowment and starts earning at 3%, it would yield $36M/year.
This would fund 720 $50K full-ride scholarships.
So, about 180 new frosh a year could be on full ride. Might ripple through and change the entire competitive college landscape. Given the country's desperate need for STEM students, wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't, this be nice?
Might take 10 years, but is likely to be 100x as important as Solyndra, etc for our future.
After reading the article I am not sure what really happened. If I read Marvell's position in the article correctly, the disputed patent was not technically feasible nor used. If I understand (reading into the ruling) the judgement against Marvell they both used the patent and implemented it. I would have very much liked some investigative reporting showing at least a high level of the disputed technology/patent details.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.