CMU wins $1.17 billion verdict against Marvell over HDD patents


Recommended Posts

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.com/news/51184-cmu-wins-117-billion-verdict-against-marvell-over-hdd-patents.html

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!
    • Depends on what you need. Might be a bit clearer on what you plan to do with it. Sort of a waste if you get the newest and greatest, but don't know how to use it.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      258
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!