Intel Sued Over Atom Power Management Feature
Intel, Marvell and Freescale are being sued over a common technology used to reduce the power consumption of processors.
Intel used such a technology, called Speedstep, since 2000, but is now being asked to pay damages, license fees, and attorney's fees in a patent infringement suit.
The suit was filed by Frisco, Texas-based Power Management Systems, which claims rights to a patent that describes a "power management apparatus collocated on the same integrated circuit as the functional unit that it manages."
The patent was filed in January 1994 by Dublin, California-based Electronics Products Company and was granted in April of 1996. There was no information how that patent found its way to Power Management Systems and why the patent infringements complaints are now filed more than 10 years after Intel introduced this technology in its products. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff does not target the entire processor line of Intel, but just the Atom 600-series of CPUs.
However, the case could set a precedence and may only be limited because of simplicity and cost reasons at this time. If a patent violation is confirmed, Intel (and others) may be on the hook for substantial damages and license payments. Regardless, it's unlikely that Freescale, Marvell and Intel will simply roll over and pay.
I was think along the same line but you beat me to it.
If the OS doesn't support the powermanagement features, they are not activated. So in a way it requires software. So its not like the cpu throttles itself.
100 percent agreed. In the early years of airplanes, the government asked Boeing and the Wright Brothers to play nice with each other and stop suing each other. It is my understanding that the Wright Brothers insistence on suing competitors hurt their business rather than helping it. This is, perhaps, part of the reason there is no "Wright Brothers Aircraft" company that exists today. It is unfortunate that there is no better means to protect the right to make an income from an idea.
That is what a patent is. It is considered the right to sue anyone or any entity when they use your patented idea without your permission. I am not a patent lawyer, however, if the patent is valid, and it will almost certainly be challenged in this case, it sounds broad enough where those being sued would have to pay.
Err, not exactly. The patent is basically showing that you "own" the idea for a certain period of time, and if someone else wishes to use your idea, then they have to pay you to do so. Lawsuits come in if that licensing does not happen.
They own the patent for a switch and they're suing Intel? Sorry, the programing code is not an apparatus. NEXT!!!
Intel winning a lawsuit? Now that would be something new...
Because it is a popular thing to do nowadays. If this keeps up, creative thought will be no more (unless you can afford it).
I have patents. I am constantly trying to find better ways to do things that I patent with no intention of going to my garage and making things. I make money selling my ideas to companies. If I could not patent my ideas then anyone that I try to sell my ideas to could simply steal them and all my time and creativity would be wasted.
It has never happened to me but I have associates that have tried to sell their ideas and the company stole the idea and said that to get royalties he would have to sue them and spend $10 million in lawyer fees so it just was not worth the effort.
It is illegal using of patented ideas that is killing innovation. All of us that are trying to constantly improve things will stop if there in no monetary benefit for our ideas.
The legal costs to even consider a new product prohibits the smaller sized companies to do so, no wonder the US ecconomy/politics looks like it does when soon only a handfull huge companys will remain when the rest is crushed in legal battles rather than innovation and superior products.