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 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  2. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  3. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  4. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  5. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  6. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  7. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  8. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  9. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  10. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  11. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  12. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  13. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  14. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  15. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  16. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  17. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  18. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  19. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  20. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  21. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  22. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  24. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  25. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  26. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  27. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  28. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  29. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  30. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents


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