HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Carnegie Mellon University, taking a page from the Apple playbook, is now seeking triple the $1.7 billion it was awarded by a jury last month. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Carnegie Mellon Seeks Triple Damages in Marvell Patent Case
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
siliconnerd
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 1,768
Marvell's market cap is just over 5 billion. What is Carnage Mellon going to do? Ask for majority share of the company. There is no way in hell that damages from this patent infringement are anywhere near what they were awarded.
freeloader1969
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,238
If I owned a large corporation in the IT/manufacturing business, I would seriously consider not doing any business in the U.S. until they have this whole patent mess sorted out. It's just not worth it.
If the university gets it, I demand they pay it to the taxpayers of the USA, since we funded their stupid ass grants to start with.
IMO, colleges operated with federally funded grants should not be allowed ownership of any patent. All college derived discovery should be strictly public domain.
IMO, colleges operated with federally funded grants should not be allowed ownership of any patent. All college derived discovery should be strictly public domain.
They also have tons of federal grants, with many from the defense department. Though with that said I am sure patent ownership is well documented in their contracts.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
It could be like the infamous Pennzoil v Texaco lawsuit where the winner ended up owning the loser (due to the size of the award)
What you're implying doesn't make sense.
Ignoring the fact that Carnegie Mellon is a private university, allowing Marvell (a private, for-profit corporation) to infringe on public patents would result in the opposite of what you seem to be desiring here: public ownership of publicly funded research results and/or patents.
A public university suing a private corporation for patent infringement would result in the money from the award going back to the public rather than remaining in the private corporation's coffers.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
Was ANY Federal money used in research of that technology, even if 1% of the budget? If so, the patent needs to be made public domain, regardless of whether the uni is private or not. If they received any sort of Federal or State grant, then it needs to be public domain, free for use by anyone, including Marvell.
Otherwise, I'd really like to see Marvell win here, unless CMU can actually show usage of the technology. If they've researched the tech but do not intend to use it in any product, it should be made public domain by default, because that would be patent trolling, and I am against all patent trolls, even if they are a well-respected university.
Of course, what should be and what will happen are rarely the case.
Otherwise, I'd really like to see Marvell win here, unless CMU can actually show usage of the technology. If they've researched the tech but do not intend to use it in any product, it should be made public domain by default, because that would be patent trolling, and I am against all patent trolls, even if they are a well-respected university.
Of course, what should be and what will happen are rarely the case.
How does this make sense?
You think the patent should be public and if it isn't then a for-profit, private corporation can just infringe on it?
How does that result not harm the public *more* than Carnegie Mellon retaining ownership of the patent?
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
mope54, your response appears to assume that I am for granting the patent to Marvell instead. No. What I said makes perfect sense, as did the person you said the same exact thing to. Rather than telling everyone else their replies don't make sense, how about you actually put some effort into understanding them?
If CMU researched this patent with ANY public money, the patent needs to be made public.
If CMU researched this patent and does not intend to use it, the patent needs to be made public as they would in that case literally be a patent troll no different than Apple or any of those other companies we hear about that take every tech company to court because they got some BS patent on some obvious thing. If this is the case, I'd rather Marvell win the right to use the patent. But the patent in that case should be declared public domain, not Marvell's.
Your response is not even close to what I said, either before or with this reply.
If CMU researched this patent with ANY public money, the patent needs to be made public.
If CMU researched this patent and does not intend to use it, the patent needs to be made public as they would in that case literally be a patent troll no different than Apple or any of those other companies we hear about that take every tech company to court because they got some BS patent on some obvious thing. If this is the case, I'd rather Marvell win the right to use the patent. But the patent in that case should be declared public domain, not Marvell's.
Your response is not even close to what I said, either before or with this reply.
Allowing a for-profit, private company, Marvell, to infringe on a patent is not leaving it in the "public domain"
How much effort do you think I should exert on trying to understand your logic in this? I'm asking you to explain how you arrive at that conclusion because your conclusion isn't supported by your premises.
How much effort do you think I should exert on trying to understand your logic in this? I'm asking you to explain how you arrive at that conclusion because your conclusion isn't supported by your premises.
SkribbelKat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,330
Marvell is still downloading a car no matter whether or not the design is patented by a university or a company. It shouldn't be okay for a private corporation to disregard laws just because a college is the victim.
That's like saying it's okay for General Mills to steal the Mountain Dew from some college chemistry class even though we'd totally arrest a fat guy wearing a pair of skis if he did it.
That's like saying it's okay for General Mills to steal the Mountain Dew from some college chemistry class even though we'd totally arrest a fat guy wearing a pair of skis if he did it.
He arrived at it because Aaron Swartz, etc.
Before that, he probably didn't notice or care. Two weeks from now, he might not either.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
I am so glad I'm not you.
If CMU is not going to USE this patent, but will sue others that do, that makes them a patent troll. Maybe you don't know what a patent troll is, so here's a definition from Wikipedia: "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the product. A related, less pejorative expression is non-practicing entity (NPE) which describes a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention."
CMU, being a private university, is no different than Marvell, a private company. Anything with the word "private" in it is to be treated the same, as CMU is also a for-profit company.
So, again, if CMU doesn't USE the patent but will sue over it, then that makes them a patent troll. And all patent trolls need to have their patents declared public domain, usable by any private company for free. Patent trolls should not exist - those that do need to be crushed.
However, IF (notice that I've used that word the whole time) they researched said patent ONLY with their own private money AND they intend to use the patent, then I do believe they should win here.
Do you understand yet? Because I'm not going to further explain it for you.
I'm not going to engage in a discussion with you since you can't seem to refrain from condescension.
However, I do encourage you to conduct some rudimentary research on Carnegie Mellon University before labeling them a patent troll. They are, after all, one of the US' and the world's for that matter, top tier technology research institutions.
However, I do encourage you to conduct some rudimentary research on Carnegie Mellon University before labeling them a patent troll. They are, after all, one of the US' and the world's for that matter, top tier technology research institutions.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am not sure that classifying Universities as NPEs is appropriate ... if you want to take that route then Universities could actually use their protected classifications to enter key markets ... remember they have access to students who they can use as free labor by making manufacturing part of the curriculum ... since I am not opposed to monopolies I think the Universities should be allowed to sell their patents to a single company for exclusive use or license them to multiple companies (if they feel that is advantageous) ... if the government structured the grant they gave a University so that they own the IP generated then the government can sell, license, or give the patent away (at their discretion) ... if they didn't structure their grant that way then the University owns the patent and can do with it as they please
Also, the same rules on patents should apply to both companies and universities, they are never the property of the individual (if they were developed on company/school time or using company/school resources, including skills and training acquired at the employer ... schools could be exempt from that last item though)
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
if the government structured the grant they gave a University so that they own the IP generated then the government can sell, license, or give the patent away (at their discretion) ... if they didn't structure their grant that way then the University owns the patent and can do with it as they please
Here's the thing: Government doesn't own money. I mean, it acts like it does, and politicians sure as hell think it does, but that's not how our country was founded, and it's sure as hell not right.
The government is owned by the people, not the other way around. Anything the government finances comes from public funds, and thus belongs to the public.
It's actually extremely problematic that so many people have been brainwashed into believing differently these days.
This is where you're fundamentally wrong, and the "brainwashing" goes the other way (not that this argument is going to get anywhere.) The way the country was founded was irrelevant, as it's not the case today and we don't have the same Constitution nor US Laws as we did then, nor the same types of problems and opportunities.
The worst brainwashing that goes on is that people believe the Founding Fathers (aka "The Founding Fathers didn't intend..." argument) had a coherent stream of thought across these various issues. The Founding Fathers were a diverse group (as diverse as any all-white, all-rich group can be) of men and individually they disagreed on almost everything. What we got was a messy, discretionary compromise that says "a lot of this can be interpreted differently and changed in the future."
And it has. And now the money you pay to the government in the form of taxes doesn't belong to you anymore. You can complain about how it's being allocated, but you cannot demand a refund. This is the agreement you enter by living here. Your alternative is to not live here.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
Wow. I'm in a thread of people who no longer believe in "a government by the people, for the people." You literally believe that the government is a business and that that's okay. That is one of the views ruining this country. And no, trust me, the brainwashing is as I stated it.
You have trolled me off. Mission accomplished. What is wrong with you people?
P.S. as a final note to some of you, public ownership of something is not the same as me as an individual owning something. Not sure why you'd even think I implied that (it's a ridiculous jump). I have nothing more to say on that.
You have trolled me off. Mission accomplished. What is wrong with you people?
P.S. as a final note to some of you, public ownership of something is not the same as me as an individual owning something. Not sure why you'd even think I implied that (it's a ridiculous jump). I have nothing more to say on that.
in the context of patents and this discussion, "public domain" means that the public funds the research while private corporations manufacture and sell the products to the public without having to conduct any research or investment of their own
unless we're talking about citizens manufacturing hard drives in their basements for personal use and/or research purposes...but they can already do that under current patent law without fear of prosecution
the "public" currently benefits from publicly funded research because the patents and research that went into their development are at the university library for anyone to study, learn from, and use as a base of development. The patents are also on file at the patent office for any interested parties to learn from.
What can't happen is what Marvell did--take someone else's research and patents and manufacture a commercial product and profit from someone else's hard work.
That last line of mine goes so far against anything I understand to be part of core US values of hard work, ingenuity, and self-reliance that I'm surprised one would argue for a scenario where that would be the standard mode of operation.
unless we're talking about citizens manufacturing hard drives in their basements for personal use and/or research purposes...but they can already do that under current patent law without fear of prosecution
the "public" currently benefits from publicly funded research because the patents and research that went into their development are at the university library for anyone to study, learn from, and use as a base of development. The patents are also on file at the patent office for any interested parties to learn from.
What can't happen is what Marvell did--take someone else's research and patents and manufacture a commercial product and profit from someone else's hard work.
That last line of mine goes so far against anything I understand to be part of core US values of hard work, ingenuity, and self-reliance that I'm surprised one would argue for a scenario where that would be the standard mode of operation.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I don't think it is brainwashing and we can have valid disagreements on the question of "owning" the government ... as a Democratic Republic we elect individuals who are supposed to represent our interests (Congressmen for narrow interests of small districts and Senators for broader interests of the entire or half of the State ... and a President for the entire country) ... we then empower those individuals to act on our behalf and presumably in our interests, the interests of our State or district, and the interests of our country ... if we feel they do not adequately represent our interests (and enough other people feel that way then we are supposed to vote a new person in and the old person out) ... unfortunately people don't always follow the rules and they let money swing them (either through advertising or give backs to their state)
I suggested a contract because in matters of money that defines how you will deal with any questions that come up ... in theory The Constitution is the contract we established with our government on how they should behave ... part of that contract allows them to allocate money to the various government agencies and programs ... if, as part of that, they intend to return that money to the private sector (consulting, subsidies, defense spending, university grants, foreign aid, etc) we should establish some sort of covenant on what we are providing and what, if anything, we expect in return ... that is all I am saying ... I don't think that falls into the category of brainwashing ... but that could just be the brainwashing talking
Why do you think this is something new? Look at how public/government ownership and use rights work. I'm a little lost if what you want is more like a direct democracy or like communism, but it's definitely not the representative democracy we've had for 250 years.
Bladestorm
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,232
Is that an arbitrary opinion? If not, could you please show me factually how you came to that conclusion.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Well, technically I don't think any national government since ancient Greece has been a true democracy (and even those were City-States and only the Free Men were able to vote, slaves and women did not participate in the government) ... as flawed as our government gets sometimes, it is still better than many alternatives ... and a fair number of the flaws in our government are due to "We the People" (we have made out own devils a lot of the time
) ... if we continue to elect crooks and liars to government, who is most to blame, the lying crook or the voters who keep sending him back to Washington We should probably be nicer to the politicians, businessmen, and lawyers this year anyway ... it is the Year of the Snake after all
It's arbitrary in so far as every law (including "You shall not murder") and social construct is arbitrary, based on historical and social norms and in some cases man-made rules such as the categorical imperative or difference principle. It is not arbitrary in that the legal and citizenship system of every modern State operates this way, and it isn't just my opinion of how things should work.
If you really want to dive deeper for proof, we could always discuss jurisprudence and positivism vs. interpretivism, which will eventually lead us to the question "What is law?" for which there is only one possible answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo
I don't recall signing any contract. If a gang claims that it "owns" a neighborhood and that, as such, if you don't pay them protection money, they will hurt you and commit violent acts against you, does that make there claim legitimate? Should the gang be allowed to commit violent crimes against people and then claim that they are justified in doing such because the people enter into a "contract" by living in "their" neighborhood?
The only difference between government and a street gang is the scope and size.
Right, if you whittle down to its philosophical roots then a social contract is obviously arbitrary, but then so is every form of law and property, and you're left with anarchy. Not even Rothbard's stupid anarcho-capitalism (which relies on social contracts of its own,) just plain anarchy.
So for the purposes of an actual discussion, do you want to talk about the philosophical legitimacy of law, property and Statehood, or do you want to talk about things rooted in the real world, where the US and every other country operates on interpreted laws that are valid simply because the power structure (whether it be formed by representatives or 51% of the population) which determines them sees them as valid.
If your idea is to point out the circular logic involved in granting legitimacy to Statehood, then... we already get it. It's not a very pragmatic argument though.
So for the purposes of an actual discussion, do you want to talk about the philosophical legitimacy of law, property and Statehood, or do you want to talk about things rooted in the real world, where the US and every other country operates on interpreted laws that are valid simply because the power structure (whether it be formed by representatives or 51% of the population) which determines them sees them as valid.
If your idea is to point out the circular logic involved in granting legitimacy to Statehood, then... we already get it. It's not a very pragmatic argument though.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
When people ask for such stupid sums, waaay more than the damages could ever possibly be, the entire case should be kicked out. Unless this organization intends to set up it's own facilities to produce something on these patents, then purposely trying to close down a company that is, is harmful to both business, technology and consumers. It's just moronic greed which should be punished.
You act as though there is something wrong with anarchy. I maintain that there is not. Anarchy != Chaos. Anarchy means that people are free to chose whom they associate with. If a group of people wish to use their private land to form a city, they can impose whatever conditions they want on anyone buying land from them and thus fund things like police, firefighters, roads, and schools if they so chose (What they would not be free to do is to annex someone against their will and impose their rules on them).
Argumentum ad populum. The fact that a majority of a people believe something to be true does not make it so. This is why democracy, as a form of government, is no better than a monarchy. The tyranny of the majority is just as bad as the tyranny of a monarch.