A count down register is a standard device and is not patentable as
such. But say someone you for example, invents a new way to do
something by using a programmable counter. Say it is a way to
automatically parallelize scalar code at run time, for argument's sake.
And one of the ways to implement your invention employs a count-down
register. Should your invention be not patentable because it uses
something that is common knowledge? Or is the fact that a piece of
common circuitry is used be irrelevant?
But when does it become an invention and what is it that defines that
invention? Synchronous buses have been around for a long, long time and
the counter here is used as a latency trigger between the device and the
bus; if I use such a counter in a bus-attached device how narrowly to you
have to define the device *my* patent covers? According to Rambus' claims
they want it to be very specific; OTOH in other cases, like DDR, they want
things to be defined very broadly - they want it both ways, all ways, up &
down and sideways.
To carry what seems to be many
folks problem to an extreme, these circuits are all built out of
transistors, and transistors have been around for years so circuits
aren't patentable? No rational person would say that. So why would a
rational person like yourself say "it uses a counter. counters are well
known. therefore it is not patentable"?
Well that's not exactly what I said of course. My issue is that because
they used a counter in a certain way with *their* memory design, they want
to prevent anybody from using it in *any* memory design.
As you say, that transistor extrapolation *is* an extreme example. How
about the guy who invented the eraser tipped pencil - denied because it was
a combination of existing known inventions? The rules have been
changed?... yes I know, and at one time you could not patent an "idea". In
fact the old rules were better before they got perverted by... lawyers. I
guess your answer is you support Rambus here?
The issue in DDR I would venture is knowing when to sample the incoming
data. This information was formerly provided by a clock edge. If it
isn't then how do you figure it out? Is the diclosed apparatus or
method novel and not obvious to one "skilled in the art" (this does not
mean an expert by the way)?
But DDR still uses clock edges. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not an
expert -- but the popular view that it uses falling as well as rising edges
is just not true; in fact what it does is use dual differential strobe
clocks (same speed as the base clock), which are out of phase by 180
degrees. The only public docs I've found on this -- the AGP specs -- seem
to leave it up to the designer on how to implement this, e.g. using the
rising edge of both clocks or using the cross-over, which would seem to
leave some room for invention circuitwise... but RMBS wants to own the idea
or concept... in essence, they own the oscillographs?
Do they "own" DDR signaling on all interfaces? Memory Interfaces? No
Interfaces? Do they own a particular style of signaling on some devices?
You tell me - that's what I was asking. They've been quoted as saying they
want it all. Rambus used DDR in their *serial* DRDRAM memory interface.
Should they have been allowed to submarine this into the *parallel*
DDR-SDRAM interface?... and the ATA/SATA interfaces and..... Micron also
has patents granted on this stuff too for DDR-SDRAM. said:
The ownership of IP developed under government or academic funding is a
subject of negotiation. The existence of such IP is obvious. Through
your elected representatives NSF or DARPA or University policies towards
ownership of IP can be changed, if there is a concensus that they should
be.
Leave it up to politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers - I guess we're going
to need a helluva lot more bureaucrats and especially lawyers... not a good
answer from my POV.
You really shouldn't use such loaded terms as "hold industry for
ransom".
But that's what they tried to do - I call a spade a spade - nothing loaded
about it. When Mr. K was leading the charge they were scumbags.... any
clearer?
If someone invents something they, or someone like their
employer, are legally entitled to the benefits of that invention.
Have you ever checked out the insider trading records for RMBS?
BENEFITs??... aplenty I believe!
The
fact that it is inconvenient for someone else is of limited relevance.
CDMA is patented and it is inconvenient to some folks in the Cell Phone
equipment industry but you don't seem to be upset over that.
Oh I've brought up Qualcomm in the same err, breath as Rambus right in this
NG. Their overt double charging for IP was fraudulent... which IINM was
well settled in the TI case. So they too are working a broken patent
system.<shrug> A monument to Jerome Lemelson?
