Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#61

Post by Iwan-Zotow »

meragrin_ wrote: post #36
cogman10 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMD could invalidate it as prior art pretty easily.

How so? The claims have very little to do with the diagrams. They are only there as an example processor for the claims being presented. The claims are specifically about cache. More specifically clearing/invalidation. What better way to prevent the competition from implementing something similar than using the competitions architecture as the base to show how it could be implemented? It is Intel's prior art against…

As prior art. You cannot patent things which are not your invention and a prior knowledge. Would be hard to proof it is your invention if you use knowledge from your main competitor in the patent application

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#62

Post by [deleted] »

sprayk wrote: post #57
notacoward wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this might be true from a legal standpoint, even using a competitor's presentation for the description seems a bit lazy, and getting caught at it is quite embarrassing. It implies that nobody at Intel can describe a modern processor very well.

Ian Cutress (discussed elsewhere in these comments for also having his description of a CPU copied in the patent) suspects it's an intern[0] [0] https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511716678199132173

[deleted]

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#63

Post by nullc »

snarfy wrote: post #23

That's how the US patent system works now. "The first inventor to file (FITF) provision of the America Invents Act transitions the U.S. to a first-inventor-to-file system from a first-to-invent system and became effective on March 16, 2013" https://www.uspto.gov/patents/first-inventor-file-fitf-resou...

That isn't what first to file means. First to file doesn't change AMD's publication from being prior art. You cannot create a valid patent by filing patents on other people's publications.

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#64

Post by nullc »

paulmd wrote: post #21
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

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.

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-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.

> 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).

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#65

Post by mhh__ »

jsnell wrote: post #34

Remember the advice of "How to read a patent in 60 seconds" [0]. In this case there are two very short independent claims (1 and 3), all the way at the last page. They both seem to just be talking of some specifics on cache coherency. [0] https://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent...

Nuance: the solution to all things ever.

I probably wouldn't have spotted this.

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#66

Post by Sebb767 »

notacoward wrote: post #44
jsnell wrote: post #34

Remember the advice of "How to read a patent in 60 seconds" [0]. In this case there are two very short independent claims (1 and 3), all the way at the last page. They both seem to just be talking of some specifics on cache coherency. [0] https://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent...

While this might be true from a legal standpoint, even using a competitor's presentation for the description seems a bit lazy, and getting caught at it is quite embarrassing. It implies that nobody at Intel can describe a modern processor very well.

> It implies that nobody at Intel can describe a modern processor very well.

This seems like a bit of a stretch, given that Intel had a lead in CPU power for years and is still quite close to AMD.

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#67

Post by jrk »

MauranKilom wrote: post #49
notacoward wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this might be true from a legal standpoint, even using a competitor's presentation for the description seems a bit lazy, and getting caught at it is quite embarrassing. It implies that nobody at Intel can describe a modern processor very well.

It's definitely lazy that they didn't create their own description, but how does it follow from this that they can't?

Patents are generally not written by engineers. They are written by patent attorneys / outside consultants. The engineers have a few conversations with the attorneys, and share technical material (in this case, something specific about cache coherence). The attorneys/consultants then generate a hundred pages of patent-ese scaffolding.

The plagiarized content:

1. Is not what is being patented here.

2. Is not created by Intel engineers (or likely even Intel employees). They're busy designing chips.

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#68

Post by colejohnson66 »

bogwog wrote: post #13
matt123456789 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what you mean. Does AMD’s public disclosure of the microarchitecture prevent them from filing prior art?

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.

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.

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#69

Post by lazide »

rrss wrote: post #54
gruez wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, first-to-file just means that in the event that the patent is granted, it's awarded to the person who filed first instead of the "actual" inventor. However, the patent can still be invalidated for prior art. The net effect of this is that AMD lost their ability to patent their invention by not filing first.

something I’ve wondered for a while: Suppose someone invents something and uses it for their products, but never publishes anything about the invention, and then someone else (years later) independently develops the same thing and gets a patent that covers the first invention. Is the first person now infringing the patent, or can the fact they were doing it first (even though there is no published info to serve as pr…

‘It depends’ - but generally the first person is now infringing.

Re: AMD Zen microarchitecture and Intel's Ocean Cove patent

#70

Post by sascha_sl »

bejelentkezni wrote: post #56

Haven't AMD and Intel had to share all their patents with each other for the past 20 years anyway? I remember some agreement coming out of the ashes of the amd64 debacle. And the patent text doesn't seem to have anything to do with the images.

Only for x86 up until that point in time.
Post reply on HN