Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 vetneufuse

neufuse

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,675 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 19:44

By Matthew DeCarlo
On December 27, 2012, 2:00 PM EST


Nine jurors have ordered Marvell to pay Carnegie Mellon University $1,169,140,271 in damages for infringing two hard drive patents. If the ruling sticks on appeal, it would claim more than a year's worth of profits at Marvell, which earned just over $900 million last year and $615 million this year. Additionally, it would be the largest US patent verdict to date, topping this August's $1.05 billion ruling in the Apple versus Samsung case.

Held at a Pittsburgh federal court, the four-week trial involved CMU patents (No. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180) describing "noise predictive technology" that increases the speed by which circuits in hard drives read data from magnetic disks. Marvell insisted that the university hasn't made any innovations, as a Seagate patent (No. 6,282,251) filed 14 months prior to one of CMU's holdings describes everything covered by the patents in question.

The jury disagreed with that argument, finding Marvell guilty of selling 2.34 billion chips with the technology without a license from CMU. Even worse, the jury found that Marvell's infringement was willful, which could allow trial judge Nora Barry Fischer to award triple the damages -- a figure that would approach the Bermuda-based semiconductor company's $3.77 billion market cap. The final judgment is set to be made on May 1, 2013.

Marvell will appeal the ruling and maintains that it strongly believes "the theoretical methods described in these patents cannot practically be built in silicon even using the most advanced techniques available today, let alone with the technology available a decade ago." The company added that it uses its own patented read channel technology developed in-house. Following the news, Marvell's share price has fallen by more than 10%.


http://www.techspot....dd-patents.html


#2 jjkusaf

jjkusaf

    Deadhead

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 03
  • Location: Prattville, Al
  • OS: Win 7 Pro x64

Posted 31 December 2012 - 19:48

woohoo..higher HD prices here we come (again)

#3 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • 25,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 31 December 2012 - 19:53

Patents will be this countries downfall.

#4 OP vetneufuse

neufuse

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,675 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 19:55

Patents will be this countries downfall.


Patents should exist, HOWEVER, the length of time you can hold a patent should be changed.. it should be much shorter to allow for tech advances and prevent patent hoarding

#5 Shadrack

Shadrack

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,047 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 20:16

Patents will be this countries downfall.


They probably do need to be reformed. I'm not very educated in what was gong on in this case so I can't really make an opinion on it. If Marvell used technology that they knew they needed a license for then that is a problem. I'm not pro-destroying whatever legit protection IP and inventor owners have. Some reform needs to happen so that at least these patent dispute conflicts get handled in a more organized way. Right now the court room dramas that play out and I'm sure the lawyer bills are the most ridiculous component to the whole thing.

If I came up with some IP and patented it, any of the major players could probably rip it off from me leaving me with little recourse as there is no way I could afford the legal fight they would put up over it.

#6 nvllsvm

nvllsvm

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,575 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05
  • OS: Arch Linux
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 31 December 2012 - 20:47

Patents should exist, HOWEVER, the length of time you can hold a patent should be changed.. it should be much shorter to allow for tech advances and prevent patent hoarding


By granting someone a patent on something, a third party's private property rights are unwillingly forfeited. Patents, along with intellectual property, place restrictions on how someone can configure their private property in a private exchange. Essentially, it uses the idea of a configuration/concept/idea to illegitimately lay claim to the private property of others.

I fail to see how such things belong in a free society.

#7 Aergan

Aergan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro / Server 2012 R2 / Xubuntu 14.04
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1

Posted 01 January 2013 - 00:17

Don't understand how Seagate has a patent yet CMU wins?

#8 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • 21,347 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 01 January 2013 - 00:29

How did they infringe a patent that can't even be implemented with today's technology? Also, they had their own patent and the jury "disagreed with that argument". It seems to me like the jury was pressured to side against a non-US company.

#9 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,354 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 01 January 2013 - 00:56

How did they infringe a patent that can't even be implemented with today's technology? Also, they had their own patent and the jury "disagreed with that argument". It seems to me like the jury was pressured to side against a non-US company.

Welcome to contemporary US Justice™?



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!