4 ms·

The lawsuit is decidedly not referring to dynamic memory allocation. There's no way to "request" a runtime-specified amount of memory dynamically here. The mem

by ohazi 5y ago

The lawsuit is decidedly not referring to dynamic memory allocation. There's no way to "request" a runtime-specified amount of memory dynamically here. The memory in question is a tiny, fixed-size block of RAM inside the chip that's directly connected to the various logic blocks. There is no way to allocate or request anything -- that memory is all you've got, and all of the bits have been spoken for by the time the chip is taped out. What they seem to be describing is something resembling a C union mapped directly onto that RAM block. That's not dynamic allocation, that's "these bits are interpreted differently depending on which logic blocks are active, so that we don't have to have a separate RAM block for each functional unit, because that would be a waste of space." Every legal combination and order of configuration structures in this RAM block is specified and tested, that's why it's not dynamic allocation. If anything, it's a really big list of possible static allocations. I agree with you that the SRAM/DRAM distinction is immaterial, but that's just how patents are written. But of course, all this is a complete tangent. Nothing that SparkFun makes has anything to do with any of this.

nickysielicki 5y ago
What chance does our legal system have of gauging the validity of these patents when we can't even get a forum of technical people, with no horse in the race, to agree on what these things mean?
- simondotau 5y ago
  In a reasonable world, benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the patent holder when there is genuine confusion. It should be incumbent upon the filer to describe their invention in a way that is clear to experts in that relevant field. Sadly I suspect the world we live in isn't so reasonable.
  - URSpider94 5y ago
    The patent holder didn't receive their patent by accident. It was reviewed by an examiner in the patent office. Patent examiners are skilled technical researchers who are trained to comprehend the matter they are examining. Once a patent has been granted, indeed, there is benefit of the doubt that the patent is valid. However - when it comes to whether the patent applies to a given invention, that's a matter of debate in a courtroom.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      That’s certainly a good description of how the patent registration process is designed to work. Unfortunately reality, as represented by the broad proliferation of exceedingly moronic patents, begs to differ.
    - sircastor 5y ago
      In think you are grossly overestimating the effort and expertise being applied in patent approval. Or more specifically, I think you’re overestimating the expertise of the examiner in the relevant field.
    - chris_wot 5y ago
      Patent examiners seem to grant all sorts of crap that is prior art. I have very little faith in them. Edit: removed example, it was wrong.
    - smaudet 5y ago
      This is also completely ignoring economics of quality for government - the folks working there typically are either bottom rung (willing to accept non-competetive lower pay), or as a 'civic duty' of some sort. There is some exception perhaps for the intelligence community (NSA et all) because they have had somewhat a monopoly in that legally speaking, although again, there are private entities out there you never hear of which may be of higher quality. But even there, talk to pretty much any vet - you can quickly surmise that as far as classifications go, most stuff is over classified without valid reason, because the safest thing to do for the low level peon is slap a "top secret" on anything and everything... And there's plenty of evidence otherwise as others have mentioned - most patents are garbage and should never have been given out.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  My understanding is that this is basically the endgame of all patents related to computing. You want to patent something so vague and poorly defined that it can be used to make a claim against anything.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Yes, that is very common for patents, but is not the case here. The patent and even lawsuit are very explicit that the "invention" works with both static and dynamic RAM. There is no point where they claim that dynamic RAM is better or some novel part of their invention. They are instead excluding the need for things like ROM.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by ohazi 5y ago

nickysielicki 5y ago

What chance does our legal system have of gauging the validity of these patents when we can't even get a forum of technical people, with no horse in the race, to agree on what these things mean?

simondotau 5y ago
In a reasonable world, benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the patent holder when there is genuine confusion. It should be incumbent upon the filer to describe their invention in a way that is clear to experts in that relevant field. Sadly I suspect the world we live in isn't so reasonable.
- URSpider94 5y ago
  The patent holder didn't receive their patent by accident. It was reviewed by an examiner in the patent office. Patent examiners are skilled technical researchers who are trained to comprehend the matter they are examining. Once a patent has been granted, indeed, there is benefit of the doubt that the patent is valid. However - when it comes to whether the patent applies to a given invention, that's a matter of debate in a courtroom.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    That’s certainly a good description of how the patent registration process is designed to work. Unfortunately reality, as represented by the broad proliferation of exceedingly moronic patents, begs to differ.
  - sircastor 5y ago
    In think you are grossly overestimating the effort and expertise being applied in patent approval. Or more specifically, I think you’re overestimating the expertise of the examiner in the relevant field.
  - chris_wot 5y ago
    Patent examiners seem to grant all sorts of crap that is prior art. I have very little faith in them. Edit: removed example, it was wrong.
  - smaudet 5y ago
    This is also completely ignoring economics of quality for government - the folks working there typically are either bottom rung (willing to accept non-competetive lower pay), or as a 'civic duty' of some sort. There is some exception perhaps for the intelligence community (NSA et all) because they have had somewhat a monopoly in that legally speaking, although again, there are private entities out there you never hear of which may be of higher quality. But even there, talk to pretty much any vet - you can quickly surmise that as far as classifications go, most stuff is over classified without valid reason, because the safest thing to do for the low level peon is slap a "top secret" on anything and everything... And there's plenty of evidence otherwise as others have mentioned - most patents are garbage and should never have been given out.
sidewndr46 5y ago
My understanding is that this is basically the endgame of all patents related to computing. You want to patent something so vague and poorly defined that it can be used to make a claim against anything.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Yes, that is very common for patents, but is not the case here. The patent and even lawsuit are very explicit that the "invention" works with both static and dynamic RAM. There is no point where they claim that dynamic RAM is better or some novel part of their invention. They are instead excluding the need for things like ROM.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]