5 ms·

I like SparkFun and I don't like patent trolls, but I have to say that SparkFun's mockery of the patent doesn't make sense. It is pretty clear that this patent

by kens 5y ago

I like SparkFun and I don't like patent trolls, but I have to say that SparkFun's mockery of the patent doesn't make sense. It is pretty clear that this patent was written by an engineer describing their actual system in great detail followed by one fairly narrow claim. I've seen many patents that are mostly written by lawyers, and I don't see any influence of lawyers in this patent. SparkFun's criticism is kind of painful to read. The diagram that SparkFun claims is SPI is not SPI. The discussion that SparkFun claims is malloc is entirely unrelated to malloc. SparkFun claims that when the patent discusses processing multiple streams of data that it's discussing variable length arrays, but it's not. They claim that a MAU doesn't exist, but a MAU is a multiplier-accumulator unit. SparkFun seems to be entirely confusing the motivation of the engineer filing the patent in 2008 with the motivation of the patent trolls. I've seen many patents that are fluff and nonsense, but this one is a solid patent. The infringement claim is probably bogus; I don't see any evidence that the pcDuino infringes the one narrow claim in the patent. I hope that SparkFun can quickly get rid of this lawsuit. I don't get any enjoyment out of criticizing SparkFun's post, but having spent the time to look over the patent, I feel that I should comment.

nixpulvis 5y ago
I'm no patent lawyer either, but I skimmed over the pages of "434" and it's clearly a bunch of half baked shit. Can you list one novelty in there worthy of patent, even for 1998? I'll grant you that `malloc` might be a bit of a stretch for the full extent of the patent, but surely FPGA manufacturers aren't sweating about this, right!? Anyway, space-time tradeoffs and the like, it's all basically the same shit, so why not just patent the whole shebang. Well, at least Sparkfun's Nate is out to call you out.
- colanderman 5y ago
  If you "skimmed pages" you are reading the wrong pages. The only page that matters is the final one, the text after "I Claim". It is very narrow (as the GP points out), and for something that probably actually existed and did something arguably, if minutely, novel. It sounds like a particular implementation technique for some sort of MIMD vector processor. The entire rest of the document is explicatory, and indicates nothing about what was actually patented, just about how the invention is actually used in a system.
  - zh3 5y ago
    Bit of a stretch to claim MIMD/vector processing covers that particular product [0]; maybe they're going after that because it's got a Mali 400 GPU (in which case I'd just refer them to ARM's lawyers). [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160909142123/https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13610 http://web.archive.org/web/20160909142123/https://www.sparkf...
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      The trolls presumably picked on SparkFun rather than ARM because the latter has the resources to fight back hard.
      - zh3 5y ago
        I once had a similiar situation, where we were going to be sued if we didn't pay up. I sent back a letter asking them to explicitly identify the infringing item; never heard back.
  - roelschroeven 5y ago
    The claim as I understand it (for reference: based on the description on the last page of https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/1/7/Patent_US_6289434.pdf https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/1/7/Pate..., after "I Claim"): "A data processing device with these components: - RAM for storing data and instructions - Multiple processors, each connected to the RAM, each with a multiplier, an arithmetic unit, an arithmetic logic unit, and a bit manipulation unit, all of these units coupled so that output from one can be used as input for the next. The processors can work in parallel. They can - read instructions and data from RAM - execute the instructions to process the data - output the results " That's it (unless I missed something, but I don't think so). That is not very narrow. On the contrary: it describes pretty much any multi-processor system. It certainly doesn't describe a particular implementation technique.
    - alias_neo 5y ago
      If I didn't know better, I could easily mistake that for a description of the Cell microarchitecture[0] "...that combines a general-purpose PowerPC core of modest performance with streamlined coprocessing elements which greatly accelerate multimedia and vector processing applications, as well as many other forms of dedicated computation." and "To achieve the high performance needed for mathematically intensive tasks, such as decoding/encoding MPEG streams, generating or transforming three-dimensional data, or undertaking Fourier analysis of data, the Cell processor marries the SPEs and the PPE via EIB to give access, via fully cache coherent DMA (direct memory access), to both main memory and to other external data storage" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29
- Taniwha 5y ago
  I've said this elsewhere here but I think that 1) it's likely been written by an engineer, not a patent lawyer, and 2) it's possible that one reason for the large initial exposition is not to claim new invention but to establish prior art - to protect the engineer against patent trolls
jayzalowitz 5y ago
Most likely: Kens runs a site on reverse engineering and the first result is a arduino. Ken is advising/writing/a part of the suit somehow.
- kens 5y ago
  Let me state that this[*] is 100% not true. I have no connection at all with this suit, except seeing it on HN like everyone else. It's a bit bizarre to appear in some sort of conspiracy theory. [*] i.e. the second sentence. I do have a blog on reverse engineering.
barbegal 5y ago
I agree, the patent is slightly odd in that it only makes a single claim on the media processing units. I think any multi-core processor would fit the claim of the patent. It seems that in this case the engineer was told to file the patent but they didn't have enough money to get the lawyers to produce some proper claims to protect the unique elements of this design.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Agreed. Most patents include a sequence of progressively narrower claims building on one another, including permutations of subsets of the new mechanisms claimed, with the expectation that the broadest is likely invalid, the narrowest is definitely novel, and the courts can determine where the boundary falls between the others. That this patent does none of this I agree suggests a lawyer did not get paid enough, or the patent was intended to publish the ideas (i.e. stop the "big players" from copying an idea and patenting it). As-is, depending on how you squint and read it, the single claim either is too specific for anything but a clone of the product it's describing to infringe, or so generic it's just describing prior art.
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
Having significant Gell-Mann amnesia here after reading the article... and some of the comments here.
Traster 5y ago
>SparkFun's criticism is kind of painful to read. The diagram that SparkFun claims is SPI is not SPI. The discussion that SparkFun claims is malloc is entirely unrelated to malloc. Yeah this is where my spidey sense started tingling. He mocks "Dynamic RAM" but I don't understand the joke, there is dynamic and static RAM and presumably this patent is talking about loading the configuration at run-time as opposed to using something like Flash. What's funny about this? As far as I understood the parts he was narrating it sounds less like malloc and more like a reprogrammable instruction memory. It's certainly not something unique and patentable but might be valid context for a real innovation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- randomswede 5y ago
  Almost all RAM in the last few decades has been DRAM, rather than SRAM.
  - Traster 5y ago
    Not on the FPGA Board I write code for every day.
    - randomswede 5y ago
      I am not disputing that SRAM still has its place, but in "bits sold", I would be surprised if there's even 1 bit of SRAM sold for every 100 bits of DRAM sold.
colejohnson66 5y ago
Yeah. This was painful. > Al is claiming that they have patent number 6289434 which they quickly start referring to as patent ‘434. Can I tell you how humorous it is that an attorney feels it necessary to shorten a 7-digit number to a 4-character abbreviation? Thanks Al. That really saves me some time. The 3 digit “abbreviation” is a common thing in patent law. It’s because, when in court, they refer to them by those last three if they’re unambiguous (to save time). So it would make sense to use the “abbreviated” form in the legal filings. Now, about it being expired: > Patent 6289434 was written in 1998 and granted in 2001. I’ll start by pointing out that patents are valid for 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed, so 2018, but I’m no patent attorney. IANAL as well, but Google Patents[0] lists it as expired worldwide… Can anyone chime in about this? [0]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6289434B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6289434B1/en
- josaka 5y ago
  20 years is a good first approximation for patent term. Patents expire 20 years from the first non-provisional priority date in the US, plus whatever term extension is granted by the USPTO to compensate you for USPTO delays, less any term lost for a terminal disclaimer. It's fair game to sue on an expired patent, because in some cases, you can collect for past damages that accrued up to six years in the past. That's probably why the complaint focused on an older product, potentially sold during the patent term.

by kens 5y ago

nixpulvis 5y ago

I'm no patent lawyer either, but I skimmed over the pages of "434" and it's clearly a bunch of half baked shit. Can you list one novelty in there worthy of patent, even for 1998? I'll grant you that `malloc` might be a bit of a stretch for the full extent of the patent, but surely FPGA manufacturers aren't sweating about this, right!? Anyway, space-time tradeoffs and the like, it's all basically the same shit, so why not just patent the whole shebang. Well, at least Sparkfun's Nate is out to call you out.

colanderman 5y ago
If you "skimmed pages" you are reading the wrong pages. The only page that matters is the final one, the text after "I Claim". It is very narrow (as the GP points out), and for something that probably actually existed and did something arguably, if minutely, novel. It sounds like a particular implementation technique for some sort of MIMD vector processor. The entire rest of the document is explicatory, and indicates nothing about what was actually patented, just about how the invention is actually used in a system.
- zh3 5y ago
  Bit of a stretch to claim MIMD/vector processing covers that particular product [0]; maybe they're going after that because it's got a Mali 400 GPU (in which case I'd just refer them to ARM's lawyers). [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160909142123/https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13610 http://web.archive.org/web/20160909142123/https://www.sparkf...
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    The trolls presumably picked on SparkFun rather than ARM because the latter has the resources to fight back hard.
    - zh3 5y ago
      I once had a similiar situation, where we were going to be sued if we didn't pay up. I sent back a letter asking them to explicitly identify the infringing item; never heard back.
- roelschroeven 5y ago
  The claim as I understand it (for reference: based on the description on the last page of https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/1/7/Patent_US_6289434.pdf https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/1/7/Pate..., after "I Claim"): "A data processing device with these components: - RAM for storing data and instructions - Multiple processors, each connected to the RAM, each with a multiplier, an arithmetic unit, an arithmetic logic unit, and a bit manipulation unit, all of these units coupled so that output from one can be used as input for the next. The processors can work in parallel. They can - read instructions and data from RAM - execute the instructions to process the data - output the results " That's it (unless I missed something, but I don't think so). That is not very narrow. On the contrary: it describes pretty much any multi-processor system. It certainly doesn't describe a particular implementation technique.
  - alias_neo 5y ago
    If I didn't know better, I could easily mistake that for a description of the Cell microarchitecture[0] "...that combines a general-purpose PowerPC core of modest performance with streamlined coprocessing elements which greatly accelerate multimedia and vector processing applications, as well as many other forms of dedicated computation." and "To achieve the high performance needed for mathematically intensive tasks, such as decoding/encoding MPEG streams, generating or transforming three-dimensional data, or undertaking Fourier analysis of data, the Cell processor marries the SPEs and the PPE via EIB to give access, via fully cache coherent DMA (direct memory access), to both main memory and to other external data storage" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29
Taniwha 5y ago
I've said this elsewhere here but I think that 1) it's likely been written by an engineer, not a patent lawyer, and 2) it's possible that one reason for the large initial exposition is not to claim new invention but to establish prior art - to protect the engineer against patent trolls

jayzalowitz 5y ago

Most likely: Kens runs a site on reverse engineering and the first result is a arduino. Ken is advising/writing/a part of the suit somehow.

kens 5y ago
Let me state that this[*] is 100% not true. I have no connection at all with this suit, except seeing it on HN like everyone else. It's a bit bizarre to appear in some sort of conspiracy theory. [*] i.e. the second sentence. I do have a blog on reverse engineering.

barbegal 5y ago

I agree, the patent is slightly odd in that it only makes a single claim on the media processing units. I think any multi-core processor would fit the claim of the patent. It seems that in this case the engineer was told to file the patent but they didn't have enough money to get the lawyers to produce some proper claims to protect the unique elements of this design.

colanderman 5y ago
Agreed. Most patents include a sequence of progressively narrower claims building on one another, including permutations of subsets of the new mechanisms claimed, with the expectation that the broadest is likely invalid, the narrowest is definitely novel, and the courts can determine where the boundary falls between the others. That this patent does none of this I agree suggests a lawyer did not get paid enough, or the patent was intended to publish the ideas (i.e. stop the "big players" from copying an idea and patenting it). As-is, depending on how you squint and read it, the single claim either is too specific for anything but a clone of the product it's describing to infringe, or so generic it's just describing prior art.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago

Having significant Gell-Mann amnesia here after reading the article... and some of the comments here.

Traster 5y ago

>SparkFun's criticism is kind of painful to read. The diagram that SparkFun claims is SPI is not SPI. The discussion that SparkFun claims is malloc is entirely unrelated to malloc. Yeah this is where my spidey sense started tingling. He mocks "Dynamic RAM" but I don't understand the joke, there is dynamic and static RAM and presumably this patent is talking about loading the configuration at run-time as opposed to using something like Flash. What's funny about this? As far as I understood the parts he was narrating it sounds less like malloc and more like a reprogrammable instruction memory. It's certainly not something unique and patentable but might be valid context for a real innovation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
randomswede 5y ago
Almost all RAM in the last few decades has been DRAM, rather than SRAM.
- Traster 5y ago
  Not on the FPGA Board I write code for every day.
  - randomswede 5y ago
    I am not disputing that SRAM still has its place, but in "bits sold", I would be surprised if there's even 1 bit of SRAM sold for every 100 bits of DRAM sold.

colejohnson66 5y ago

Yeah. This was painful. > Al is claiming that they have patent number 6289434 which they quickly start referring to as patent ‘434. Can I tell you how humorous it is that an attorney feels it necessary to shorten a 7-digit number to a 4-character abbreviation? Thanks Al. That really saves me some time. The 3 digit “abbreviation” is a common thing in patent law. It’s because, when in court, they refer to them by those last three if they’re unambiguous (to save time). So it would make sense to use the “abbreviated” form in the legal filings. Now, about it being expired: > Patent 6289434 was written in 1998 and granted in 2001. I’ll start by pointing out that patents are valid for 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed, so 2018, but I’m no patent attorney. IANAL as well, but Google Patents[0] lists it as expired worldwide… Can anyone chime in about this? [0]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6289434B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6289434B1/en

josaka 5y ago
20 years is a good first approximation for patent term. Patents expire 20 years from the first non-provisional priority date in the US, plus whatever term extension is granted by the USPTO to compensate you for USPTO delays, less any term lost for a terminal disclaimer. It's fair game to sue on an expired patent, because in some cases, you can collect for past damages that accrued up to six years in the past. That's probably why the complaint focused on an older product, potentially sold during the patent term.