3 ms·

This take on it from the AMD subreddit makes at least for me more sense than the "evil patents" way of thinking. Though, nothing confirmed yet. It seems strang

This take on it from the AMD subreddit makes at least for me more sense than the "evil patents" way of thinking. Though, nothing confirmed yet. It seems strange at first, but the selection of patents and the timeline lead me to think of a very particular plausible line of events that would absolutely merit a lawsuit and also explain the delay to implementing said lawsuit. AMD, IIRC, has access to Global Foundries' patent portfolio - enabling them to use those patents freely. Makes sense, they were once the same company and have a very tight agreement in effect for at least a few more years. AMD goes to TSMC for 28nm after GF's stumbles and takes GF's patents to TSMC to improve their process tech for AMD's needs. All legit, all legal. TSMC does not have permission to use those patents on non-AMD products, but does so anyway. Fast forward a couple years and investigating TSMC's process as it applies to shipping products by other vendors reveals patent infringements. Good-faith efforts are made to stop the infringement, but TSMC either doesn't acknowledge the infringement or simply claims compliance and then does nothing. Ergo, the lawsuit we see today. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cvqu5l/comment/ey6fje5 https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cvqu5l/comment/ey6fje5

baybal2 7y ago
FinFET is a TSMC's invention as well as immersion lithography, and yet it is somebody else got the patent. How is that fair? How does it "encourage progress?"
- dmix 7y ago
  Real world innovation and who runs to the patent office first are often two very different things. Yet many, often very rational, people defend the process as necessary for innovation. Much like minimum wage laws there's a lot of sub-industries where it legitimately helps (studies show fast food mega corps don't have lower employment rates after small bumps) and many where it hurts the very same people it claims to protect (unskilled youth and disabled people who just want to work in the summer/after school/part time for cash strapped small businesses for experience and pocket change, and don't benefit from a 'living wage' or nothing arrangements). I'm a big proponent of having these laws be specific to certain fields where it makes sense like biotech and not presented as a panacea that's pigeonholed onto every industry and easily exploited by companies who contribute little more than hiring good lawyers.
  - wbl 7y ago
    That's not how it works. You have to invent in order to get a patent. The first ro file rule happens when two people independently invent the same thing.
    - dmix 7y ago
      It might not be how parents work but it is how innovation works in most industries, so what are we really rewarding here? Being first to claim it doesn't mean you're the first to "invent" something and are the only one who should be given the power who gets to turn it into a real life thing and make it actually useful.
- lvh 7y ago
  Unfortunately, patent offices think the courts will sort it out if they mess up, and courts think patent offices probably did an OK job vetting, and they both defer to each other more than they probably should. That said: there are only a handful of successful patent defense strategies, and some of them merely prevent bad things from happening to you (e.g. arguing noninfringement), others invalidate the patent (e.g. showing prior art). So, just because the process stumbles sometimes doesn't imply that patent can not encourage progress and it does not imply patents can't encourage progress in general. But it does lead to expensive lawsuits that even bona-fide in-the-right actors will settle to avoid. To take the counterpoint: we're not seriously suggesting GF is a patent troll right? (Though a recent court case argued "patent troll" can't be defamatory because no-one knows what it means and so it must be opinion ;-))
- Panoramix 7y ago
  TSMC was the first to propose the general idea to use water. Others [ASML and Nikon] made it work in actual implementations that required hundreds of other developments. TSMC doesn't even make lithography machines, it's a completely different business. I don't see how anything is unfair here.
sct202 7y ago
TMSC has always been a contract foundry with customers who have potential IP conflicts, I would be kind of surprised if they were sloppy like this.
- Gwypaas 7y ago
  The other side of this question is, which other foundries in the world would have tech that TSMC would be interested in? I'm not well versed in the foundry universe but a quick guess would be a very limited number of companies. Maybe Intel, GF, Samsung and a company or two I don't know about.

baybal2 7y ago

FinFET is a TSMC's invention as well as immersion lithography, and yet it is somebody else got the patent. How is that fair? How does it "encourage progress?"

dmix 7y ago
Real world innovation and who runs to the patent office first are often two very different things. Yet many, often very rational, people defend the process as necessary for innovation. Much like minimum wage laws there's a lot of sub-industries where it legitimately helps (studies show fast food mega corps don't have lower employment rates after small bumps) and many where it hurts the very same people it claims to protect (unskilled youth and disabled people who just want to work in the summer/after school/part time for cash strapped small businesses for experience and pocket change, and don't benefit from a 'living wage' or nothing arrangements). I'm a big proponent of having these laws be specific to certain fields where it makes sense like biotech and not presented as a panacea that's pigeonholed onto every industry and easily exploited by companies who contribute little more than hiring good lawyers.
- wbl 7y ago
  That's not how it works. You have to invent in order to get a patent. The first ro file rule happens when two people independently invent the same thing.
  - dmix 7y ago
    It might not be how parents work but it is how innovation works in most industries, so what are we really rewarding here? Being first to claim it doesn't mean you're the first to "invent" something and are the only one who should be given the power who gets to turn it into a real life thing and make it actually useful.
lvh 7y ago
Unfortunately, patent offices think the courts will sort it out if they mess up, and courts think patent offices probably did an OK job vetting, and they both defer to each other more than they probably should. That said: there are only a handful of successful patent defense strategies, and some of them merely prevent bad things from happening to you (e.g. arguing noninfringement), others invalidate the patent (e.g. showing prior art). So, just because the process stumbles sometimes doesn't imply that patent can not encourage progress and it does not imply patents can't encourage progress in general. But it does lead to expensive lawsuits that even bona-fide in-the-right actors will settle to avoid. To take the counterpoint: we're not seriously suggesting GF is a patent troll right? (Though a recent court case argued "patent troll" can't be defamatory because no-one knows what it means and so it must be opinion ;-))
Panoramix 7y ago
TSMC was the first to propose the general idea to use water. Others [ASML and Nikon] made it work in actual implementations that required hundreds of other developments. TSMC doesn't even make lithography machines, it's a completely different business. I don't see how anything is unfair here.

sct202 7y ago

TMSC has always been a contract foundry with customers who have potential IP conflicts, I would be kind of surprised if they were sloppy like this.

Gwypaas 7y ago
The other side of this question is, which other foundries in the world would have tech that TSMC would be interested in? I'm not well versed in the foundry universe but a quick guess would be a very limited number of companies. Maybe Intel, GF, Samsung and a company or two I don't know about.