3 ms·

Yet another patent that should never have been granted. SoC have been a thing for a long time. SoC = CPU + FPGA on a single chip. Looking at the patent, the l

Yet another patent that should never have been granted. SoC have been a thing for a long time. SoC = CPU + FPGA on a single chip. Looking at the patent, the list of 20 claims is absurd. The title says it all "... PROGRAMMABLE INSTRUCTIONS IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS", they're trying to patent anything that can run or dispatch instructions.

cptskippy 6y ago
That's how the industry works. You gather and hoard as many frivolous patents as you can in a cold war arms race. If a new company threatens your business, you search your portfolio for a patent they violated and sue them. Companies who grow to a certain size look to be acquired by larger firms with bigger war chests. Sometimes companies recognize patents are stifling progress and engage in cross licensing or pooling of patents. Sometimes they do it to gang up on a new rival.
rcxdude 6y ago
No they're not. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the only independent claims in the patent (if you're not infringing the independent claims you're not infringing any of the dependent claims: the tradeoff is the more general independent claims are generally easier to invalidate). All of them depend on having a dispatch unit which can be programmed to dispatch instructions into some logic which is configured by a bitfile (and also having the code and bitfile alongside each other and loaded by the same system). Most FPGA SoCs don't have a programmable instruction dispatch unit (which seems to me to be the core of the patent), and they generally do not have the software and bitfield side-by-side and loaded by the same loader, though that is probably an element which is quite vague and could be argued either way. I don't like patents in general (and especially in software), but this patent is not as general as you claim.
refulgentis 6y ago
>> the list of 20 claims is absurd. Claims are a union - each individual claim may sound simple, what matters is the combination. >> The title says it all "... PROGRAMMABLE INSTRUCTIONS IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS", they're trying to patent anything that can run or dispatch instructions. No. The title of a patent is not a patent.
- user5994461 6y ago
  Every claim is almost a patent on its own. Submit 20 claims that are progressively more specific, so if one claim is denied during the patent application or afterwards, the other claims can still stand. Typical strategy is to claim as many things as you can imagine, like inventing CPU and anything that can evaluate an instruction and instructions themselves, then remove any claim that the patent office refuses to grant.
- fvv 6y ago
  Claims define the context and boundaries of the patent
mhh__ 6y ago
Ironically the neural engine patent is literally the only public information on how it works I can find

cptskippy 6y ago

That's how the industry works. You gather and hoard as many frivolous patents as you can in a cold war arms race. If a new company threatens your business, you search your portfolio for a patent they violated and sue them. Companies who grow to a certain size look to be acquired by larger firms with bigger war chests. Sometimes companies recognize patents are stifling progress and engage in cross licensing or pooling of patents. Sometimes they do it to gang up on a new rival.

rcxdude 6y ago

No they're not. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the only independent claims in the patent (if you're not infringing the independent claims you're not infringing any of the dependent claims: the tradeoff is the more general independent claims are generally easier to invalidate). All of them depend on having a dispatch unit which can be programmed to dispatch instructions into some logic which is configured by a bitfile (and also having the code and bitfile alongside each other and loaded by the same system). Most FPGA SoCs don't have a programmable instruction dispatch unit (which seems to me to be the core of the patent), and they generally do not have the software and bitfield side-by-side and loaded by the same loader, though that is probably an element which is quite vague and could be argued either way. I don't like patents in general (and especially in software), but this patent is not as general as you claim.

refulgentis 6y ago

>> the list of 20 claims is absurd. Claims are a union - each individual claim may sound simple, what matters is the combination. >> The title says it all "... PROGRAMMABLE INSTRUCTIONS IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS", they're trying to patent anything that can run or dispatch instructions. No. The title of a patent is not a patent.

user5994461 6y ago
Every claim is almost a patent on its own. Submit 20 claims that are progressively more specific, so if one claim is denied during the patent application or afterwards, the other claims can still stand. Typical strategy is to claim as many things as you can imagine, like inventing CPU and anything that can evaluate an instruction and instructions themselves, then remove any claim that the patent office refuses to grant.
fvv 6y ago
Claims define the context and boundaries of the patent

mhh__ 6y ago

Ironically the neural engine patent is literally the only public information on how it works I can find