5 ms·

Well... AMD can just cite their presentation as prior art, and it will be struck down. If anything, Intel was foolish to waste money on bored lawyers.

physicsguy 5y ago
They can only do it if it was not publicly disclosed. You cannot patent something which has been kept a trade secret.
- matt123456789 5y ago
  I don’t understand what you mean. Does AMD’s public disclosure of the microarchitecture prevent them from filing prior art?
  - bogwog 5y ago
    Yeah that comment is confusingly worded. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that there is no explicit relationship between patent-ability and something being a trade secret. The important thing is just that patent applications are public, so once you file, your "secrets" are no longer secret.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      This. The whole idea of a patent is that companies share the details of the invention in the patent in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the idea.
- mojomark 5y ago
  I think it's actually the opposite. In the US, the regulations changed several years ago from "First to Invent" (which is ambiguous) to "First to File" (which is pretty clear). In any event, I think you can only claim something as prior art if it's in the public domain. So, if you're very shady/greedy/lack an ethical backbone, and you get your hands on a private brief that isn't protected intellectual property, technically you can file that patent. I assume the owner could try to prove theft if they can determine how the IP was leaked and stolen intently.
- isanengineer 5y ago
  Those AMD presentations are publicly available though. It looks like hot chips is a tech conference, and those AMD presentations were published as part of HC 28. I’ll follow up with a link if I can find one, but I think it’s pretty clear they are not in any way trade secrets.
rob74 5y ago
That's the way it should work, at least. But I have a nagging feeling that Intel wouldn't have done this so brazenly if (with the correct amount of lawyers and friendly judges) it wouldn't have seen a chance of the patent being upheld. Then again, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", so, who knows?!
- TD-Linux 5y ago
  Strictly speaking, only the claims matter, and so the text if those would need to be read and used to determine whether it can be invalidated due to prior art. The claims have very little to do with the diagrams supplied, rather they are about a way to compress cache coherency transfers if the line is all zeros (kind of like LPDDR has, in a way). That said, copying so many of a competitors' slides into figures is still stupid as it is highly unlikely to give a judge a great first impression.
- cogman10 5y ago
  IDK about intel, but quiet a few companies in their sphere offer employees bonuses for patents. It would not surprise me in the least if this was something some employee did to get a pay bump.
  - rob74 5y ago
    I was thinking about that too - kudos to them if they pulled this off, but I hope they're not with the company anymore...
paulmd 5y ago
Not how it works, actually. The system changed in 2013 and now whoever is first to file gets the patent, even if someone else can demonstrate prior art. https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/first-to-file-rule/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/first-t... AMD should have filed their own patents before talking about it publicly - that's how the game is now played. If you don't - it's now possible for someone else to file a patent on your own invention.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  This is not true - prior art is still a test for striking down a patent in court, it is just not taken into account when two entities are competing to file the same patent at the same time.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  They can, but if it is based on industrial espionage, outright theft or plagiarism then that would definitely be a reason for them to lose the patent.
- nullc 5y ago
  > Not how it works, actually. The system changed in 2013 and now whoever is first to file gets the patent, even if someone else can demonstrate prior art. This is not true, and it's a really damaging misrepresentation. First to file deals with interference between parallel applications, it doesn't change prior art based on publication. If two parties show up claiming patents on the same thing based on unpublished work, under the prior rules the party that was willing to fabricate the earliest date of invention won, under current rules the first to file wins. The misinformation you're spreading is particularly pernicious because the change increased the incentives for publishing your work early and often (to establish prior art ASAP)-- but the misinterpretation implies you should avoid publishing at all costs (to avoid a third party dishonestly patenting your publications).
tyrfing 5y ago
The presentation was cited as prior art by Intel.

physicsguy 5y ago

They can only do it if it was not publicly disclosed. You cannot patent something which has been kept a trade secret.

matt123456789 5y ago
I don’t understand what you mean. Does AMD’s public disclosure of the microarchitecture prevent them from filing prior art?
- bogwog 5y ago
  Yeah that comment is confusingly worded. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that there is no explicit relationship between patent-ability and something being a trade secret. The important thing is just that patent applications are public, so once you file, your "secrets" are no longer secret.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    This. The whole idea of a patent is that companies share the details of the invention in the patent in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the idea.
mojomark 5y ago
I think it's actually the opposite. In the US, the regulations changed several years ago from "First to Invent" (which is ambiguous) to "First to File" (which is pretty clear). In any event, I think you can only claim something as prior art if it's in the public domain. So, if you're very shady/greedy/lack an ethical backbone, and you get your hands on a private brief that isn't protected intellectual property, technically you can file that patent. I assume the owner could try to prove theft if they can determine how the IP was leaked and stolen intently.
isanengineer 5y ago
Those AMD presentations are publicly available though. It looks like hot chips is a tech conference, and those AMD presentations were published as part of HC 28. I’ll follow up with a link if I can find one, but I think it’s pretty clear they are not in any way trade secrets.

rob74 5y ago

That's the way it should work, at least. But I have a nagging feeling that Intel wouldn't have done this so brazenly if (with the correct amount of lawyers and friendly judges) it wouldn't have seen a chance of the patent being upheld. Then again, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", so, who knows?!

TD-Linux 5y ago
Strictly speaking, only the claims matter, and so the text if those would need to be read and used to determine whether it can be invalidated due to prior art. The claims have very little to do with the diagrams supplied, rather they are about a way to compress cache coherency transfers if the line is all zeros (kind of like LPDDR has, in a way). That said, copying so many of a competitors' slides into figures is still stupid as it is highly unlikely to give a judge a great first impression.
cogman10 5y ago
IDK about intel, but quiet a few companies in their sphere offer employees bonuses for patents. It would not surprise me in the least if this was something some employee did to get a pay bump.
- rob74 5y ago
  I was thinking about that too - kudos to them if they pulled this off, but I hope they're not with the company anymore...

paulmd 5y ago

Not how it works, actually. The system changed in 2013 and now whoever is first to file gets the patent, even if someone else can demonstrate prior art. https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/first-to-file-rule/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/first-t... AMD should have filed their own patents before talking about it publicly - that's how the game is now played. If you don't - it's now possible for someone else to file a patent on your own invention.

eightysixfour 5y ago
This is not true - prior art is still a test for striking down a patent in court, it is just not taken into account when two entities are competing to file the same patent at the same time.
jacquesm 5y ago
They can, but if it is based on industrial espionage, outright theft or plagiarism then that would definitely be a reason for them to lose the patent.
nullc 5y ago
> Not how it works, actually. The system changed in 2013 and now whoever is first to file gets the patent, even if someone else can demonstrate prior art. This is not true, and it's a really damaging misrepresentation. First to file deals with interference between parallel applications, it doesn't change prior art based on publication. If two parties show up claiming patents on the same thing based on unpublished work, under the prior rules the party that was willing to fabricate the earliest date of invention won, under current rules the first to file wins. The misinformation you're spreading is particularly pernicious because the change increased the incentives for publishing your work early and often (to establish prior art ASAP)-- but the misinterpretation implies you should avoid publishing at all costs (to avoid a third party dishonestly patenting your publications).

tyrfing 5y ago

The presentation was cited as prior art by Intel.