EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

09.13.11

Intel Likes Its Own Software Patents, Doesn’t Want Others to Have Any

Posted in Hardware, Patents at 10:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Classic example of how monopolists view patenting

Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds

Summary: The monopolistic company whose grossly-inflated prices and extortion of rivals depend on patents says that it is wrong for others to have them

THERE IS THIS article which we have found linked in some places after it was published yesterday, under the headline “Intel to Universities: No Patents, Please, Just Open Source”. Our wiki has a page that explains some of Intel’s crimes, so Intel/x86 apologists can get up to scratch.

“Intel wishes to see R&D with no strings attached to it (so that Intel can take it) and at the same time it wants to harm rivals using its own patent monopolies.”“But wait,” says the article, “there’s A Catch: the company has made it a condition that in order to receive the millions, your university must open source any resulting software and inventions that come out of this research funding. Yes, open source. Your university cannot stake claim to any patents. There will be no intellectual property clauses, no negotiations, no… nonsense.”

Really? Well, other than Intel’s openwashing of its image, there is a problem here because Intel is a hypocrite. We must not forget that Intel is lobbying for software patents even outside the US and the company has a huge number of patents it uses anti-competitively. Intel wishes to see R&D with no strings attached to it (so that Intel can take it) and at the same time it wants to harm rivals using its own patent monopolies. How is that reasonable or even commendable?

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

15 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    September 13, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Gravatar

    Intel is putting millions into open source research. How dare they!

  2. Jose_X said,

    September 14, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Gravatar

    The idea sounds good, but that Intel would use patents offensively makes it kind of dirty.

    Patents have a very low inventiveness bar (“non-obvious” to a person having “ordinary” skill in the art), and they give a lot of power to the first to the patent office. It seems Intel wants to be that first.

    I would hope they follow up that with a pledge that they will not take patents out either.

    Michael Reply:

    Your comments show no understanding of the concept of what it means to be open source.

    Jose_X Reply:

    What makes you say that?

    I recognized this would be a good move by someone who was not going to exploit the patent system.

    How does that show I don’t understand open source?

    Michael Reply:

    By making the fruits of this labor open source, Intel is making it so they cannot easily use this in any patent wars (though they can in force the open source license).

    Frankly I think Intel should be commended for infusing the open source community with such resources. This is a good thing. This does not imply that I think everything Intel does is good.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Well, it does sound good on the surface and Intel has been mostly a friend of FOSS (I say this last part potentially out of blissful ignorance, I don’t know).

    Given the reality of patents to a large firm, perhaps I would change the last sentence of that initial comment to read, “I would hope they follow up that with a pledge that they will not then take patents out to use offensively.”

    Michael Reply:

    Since the fruit will be open source it would be hard to do that anyway. Right?

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> Since the fruit will be open source it would be hard to do that anyway. Right?

    Can’t figure out what you meant, but I’ll take a guess at an answer.

    Probably, Intel would not be in a comfortable position to take out patents on such FOSS and use the patents offensively.

    Michael Reply:

    How can you tell others to not use OSS within the terms of the IP license it falls under (GPL, BSD License, etc.)?

    Jose_X Reply:

    Patent attacks do just that. They go around copyright.

    That the people writing the software don’t take out a patent doesn’t mean someone else can’t easily do so (especially if they know where the sw is going).

    Michael Reply:

    Wait: you can patent GPLd software? According to: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

    “To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.”

    This assumes, of course, the OSS is licensed under the GPL. I would have to check into that to be sure.

    Jose_X Reply:

    I guess I was assuming there would be more to the story.

    Eg, if Intel would own the copyrights and if they ask for assignment for contributions, then they can do whatever they want because the GPL license can’t limit the copyright owner (by law that is out of scope).

    If Intel is not going to use the software, then they can certainly sue.

    If Intel strikes deals or works closely with proxy patent trolls (and I know this is not the same thing), then these others could provide the threats.

    There is also the fact they could fatten their arsenal for exacting royalties from others (including from FOSS companies) under broad terms based on the size and strength of their overall portfolio.

    Intel could also use the patents to attack GPL projects competing with that software.

    Michael Reply:

    If the software is released under the GPL I do think most of those things are likely… or even legal.

    But Roy wants you to think there is more to the story. If there was, though, why not mention it. As it stands, what we know is that Intel is putting a lot of resources into developing OSS. This is great.

    If they abuse this somehow then of course they should be called on it… though frankly any claims I see Roy make I would want to double and triple check elsewhere. He simply is not honest.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> frankly any claims I see Roy make I would want to double and triple check elsewhere. He simply is not honest.

    OK, I will guess at two trouble spots.

    “other than Intel’s openwashing of its image, there is a problem here because Intel is a hypocrite. We must not forget that Intel is lobbying for software patents even outside the US and the company has a huge number of patents it uses anti-competitively. ”

    “Intel wishes to see R&D with no strings attached to it (so that Intel can take it) and at the same time it wants to harm rivals using its own patent monopolies. How is that reasonable or even commendable?”

    In think the first quote makes a reasonable claim of hypocrisy and antisocial behavior based on past and present behavior (or belief of such behavior) by Intel of actions that can very seriously threaten the original and largely independent creation of many (with its implied threats to liberties and its stifling of progress), lead to higher prices for consumers, and generally are a spit in the face of society that gives you much (no one intents in a cave for 20 years).

    The second (again, based on current and past experiences) expresses a belief of what are some of Intel’s main motivations today. Then perhaps assumes these really are Intel’s motivations today in condemning Intel. The way this part was worded does sound like condemning Intel already and not giving any benefit of the doubt. To the extent it is written as a statement of fact, it appears unsupported. To the extent it may come across as a strong opinion (pre-judgement), then the reader may or may not sympathize.

    Goodness, why did I just write this comment? I must be bored.

    Michael Reply:

    :) +1

What Else is New


  1. Links 26/4/2018: KStars 2.9.5, Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, NetBSD 8.0 RC1

    Links for the day



  2. Battistelli Misuses EPO Budget to Saturate the European Media With Puff Pieces About His Event

    The latest examples of 'synthetic' coverage or fluff about Battistelli's expensive event that he cryptically and mysteriously chose to have at his other workplace in Saint-Germain-en-Laye



  3. Battistelli's EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents and Even Pays the Media to Play Along, Impacting Other Continents

    With silly new terms such as "4IR" (the EPO used to say "ICT", "CII", "Industry 4.0" etc.) Team Battistelli is hoping to make software patents look/sound acceptable, honourable and inherently innovative or "revolutionary"



  4. Links 25/4/2018: Ubuntu 18.04 Coming Shortly, Fedora 28 Next Month

    Links for the day



  5. Koch Brothers and Big Oil Could Not Buy the Decisions in Oil States, SAS

    In Oil States Energy Services v Greene’s Energy Group, a case which Koch-funded think tanks meddled in (including those whose panel guests send me threatening legal letters), ends up with dissent from a Koch-connected Justice citing or quoting those very same Koch-funded think tanks



  6. The European Patent Office (EPO) Wastes a Lot of Money on External PR Agencies for Battistelli's 'Heist'

    The EPO's management is once again scattering/throwing EPO budget at PR agencies and media companies (publishers/broadcasters) to disseminate a bunch of puff pieces and virtually ignore the very obvious conflict of interest, which should be a scandal on par with that of FIFA (resulting in the arrest of its boss, Mr. Blatter)



  7. Today's EPO is Not Compatible With the Law and It's Grossly Incompatible With Truth and Justice

    Today, once again, the EPO openly advocates software patents while media promotes loopholes (notably hype waves)



  8. Quick Mention: As Expected, the US Supreme Court Cements PTAB's Role With Trump-Appointed Gorsuch Dissenting

    Oil States has been decided and it's very good news for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); even Conservatives-leaning Justices support PTAB



  9. Links 24/4/2018: Preview of Crostini, Introducing Heptio Gimbal, OPNsense 18.1.6

    Links for the day



  10. Patent Maximalists Step Things Up With Director Andrei Iancu and It's Time for Scientists to Fight Back

    Science and technology don't seem to matter as much as the whims of the patent (litigation) 'industry', at least judging by recent actions taken by Andrei Iancu (following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee)



  11. Mythology About Patents in the East

    Misconceptions (or deliberate propaganda) about patent policy in the east poison the debate and derail a serious, facts-based discussion about it



  12. Patent Trolls Watch: Red River Innovations, Bradium Technologies/General Patent, and Wordlogic

    A quick look at some patent trolls that made the news this Monday; we are still seeing a powerful response to such trolls, whose momentum is slipping owing to the good work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  13. Holding Benoît Battistelli Accountable After the EPO

    The many abuses and offenses committed by Mr. Battistelli whilst he enjoyed diplomatic immunity can and should be brought up as that immunity expires in two months; a good start would be contacting his colleagues, who might not be aware of the full spectrum of his abuses



  14. Links 23/4/2018: Second RC of Linux 4.17 and First RC of Mesa 18.1

    Links for the day



  15. The Good Work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Latest Attempts to Undermine It

    A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents



  16. District Courts' Patent Cases, Including the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX/TXED), in a Nutshell

    A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money



  17. The Federal Circuit's (CAFC) Decisions Are Being Twisted by Patent Propaganda Sites Which Merely Cherry-Pick Cases With Outcomes That Suit Them

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)



  18. Patents Roundup: Metaswitch, GENBAND, Susman, Cisco, Konami, High 5 Games, HTC, and Nintendo

    A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")



  19. In Maxon v Funai the High 'Patent Court' (CAFC) Reaffirms Disdain for Software Patents, Which Are Nowadays Harder to Get and Then Defend

    With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”



  20. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  21. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  22. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  23. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  24. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  25. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  26. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves



  27. Short: EPO Bribes the Media and Then Brags About the Paid-for Outcome to Staff

    The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)



  28. Short: EPO's “Working Party for Quality” is to Quality What the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” is to Democracy

    To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form



  29. Short: This Spring's Message From the EPO's President (Corrected)

    A corrected preface from the Liar in Chief, the EPO's notoriously crooked and dishonest President



  30. Short: Highly Misleading and Unscientific Graphics From the EPO for an Illusion of Growth

    A look at the brainwash that EPO management is distributing to staff and what's wrong with it


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts