SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

I read the patent claim and ignored the rest, as the pros in these threads have been recommending that we do. I paid careful attention to the colons and semi-colons. There is one claim and it is short and not hard to understand. Take a look for yourself, you should be able to get the gist in well under 5 minutes: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6289434B1/en.

To me, it looks like the patent is for.... "hooking up memory together with several processors in a system, and having that system process 'media' data in parallel" with "processor" defined as "multiplier unit + arithmetic unit + arithmetic logic unit + bit manipulation unit" (quotes mine, not from the patent text). There's also a bit of stuff about how the arithmetic logic unit and the bit manipulation unit should be able to "operate concurrently" with some of the other units. It seems like this patent is basically for the idea of parallel processing on modern computers in general. If so, most of the computing industry infringes this patent today.

I'm not a hardware expert, though, and it's possible I'm missing something and the claim is more narrow. It depends on the exact definition of those processor components and whether this ability of some CPU sub-units to "operate concurrently" with others is common on modern computers.

All that aside, the patent seems to have no intellectual value whatsoever. I have no idea what the history of parallel processing is, but it definitely predates the writing of this patent in 1998. The only thing that seems even possibly new is a tiny bit of text specifying which units should be able to operate concurrently with other units. Is that supposed to be the novelty that we're protecting with the power of the law for 20 years?

The point of patents is that the public benefits from novel invention ideas being published, in exchange for the publisher getting exclusive rights to the idea for a few years. The public can build upon the idea sooner if it's published earlier. In what universe do we imagine that someone reads this patent claim and is enlightened and inspired to build upon it?

How is this patent anything but yet another insane, horrific abuse of the system?

> Insurance companies simply aren't in the business of solving the root-cause of any given problem.

There is precedent for insurance underwriters to attempt to modify/reduce the risks of their underwriting.

Aviation insurance often comes with training or other restrictions more severe than what the FAA requires. “Coverage shall not be in effect until pilot completes FlightSafety initial. Coverage will then be only for supervised operations by a pilot meeting the open pilot requirements listed in ___ until a further 25 hours of supervised operating experience is completed.” or similar.

UL (Underwriters’ Laboratories) origin story is from building insurance underwriters seeking to understand their risk.

These kinds of patents really prove that we need to boost the budget for the USPTO since they're always having things like this slip through despite the prior art out there. It's much like the FTC in this situation where Congress knows that if the FTC is well funded then nonsense that businesses do won't get by so easily so they starve the beast just enough to keep it ineffective. I swear it's the same kind of setup for the patent office.

"So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents?"

Correct. A patent is for protecting your profits after you invent something, right? So if you aren't making anything then all you are doing is fruitlessly locking up some novel insight for a period of time. You also aren't experiencing a damage to your zero profit. Worse, what we are seeing is questionably novel patents being used years after their time to browbeat people that actually do things and actually make things.

I would not weep if we were to abolish patent laws. I've been told they are there to help and support inventors but I've seen little evidence that this is the case.

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