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

71–80 of 93 posts

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

#71

Post by CalChris »

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.

Intel is citing AMD as prior art. It isn't lazy. It's necessary background.

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

#72

Post by temac »

MauranKilom wrote: post #55
ncmncm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's published, it is prior art.

They are not trying to patent what's shown in the figures, those are just given as background information. A patent for a screwdriver will most certainly also describe screws, regardless of whether screws are prior art. Patentability is solely a matter of the claims made at the end. Those claims will of course be interpreted in the context set out by the method description, but it is entirely normal for a patent to d…

It's still blatant copyright infringement at least.

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

#73

Post by temac »

gruez wrote: post #27
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...

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.

You seem to think AMD has no patent on Ryzen. Don't worry, they have. Hopefully not containing loads of diagrams from Intel :D

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

#74

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

IANAL. This is my current understanding. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct.

Using it in a product counts as "public disclosure". If you've shipped it, that's a public disclosure for patent purposes.

But it's more complicated than that, because you can file for a patent on something within one year after the first public disclosure. That also means that you can file within one year after someone else publicly discloses something, if you lack morals and decency.

So if person A develops something and starts shipping it, and person B files more than one year after the first shipment, then the device is now "prior art" that invalidates the patent. Person A faces a legal fight, but they shouldn't be infringing, because the patent should be invalid.

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

#75

Post by meragrin_ »

Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #61
meragrin_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are not trying to patent anything other than their own work. Their work is something which can be added to certain processors(AMD's included). Why not base the example on a competitor's processor so there is less of a chance someone could argue it is reliant on Intel's processor architecture?

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

#76

Post by jjnoakes »

temac wrote: post #72
MauranKilom wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not trying to patent what's shown in the figures, those are just given as background information. A patent for a screwdriver will most certainly also describe screws, regardless of whether screws are prior art. Patentability is solely a matter of the claims made at the end. Those claims will of course be interpreted in the context set out by the method description, but it is entirely normal for a patent to d…

It's still blatant copyright infringement at least.

IANAL but I would have thought that referencing material for prior art would have fallen under fair use.

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

#77

Post by gruez »

mox1 wrote: post #40
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.

Perhaps this was the entire point of Intel's work here??? Worst case scenario for Intel they block AMD from patenting (and allowing Intel to use it).

Presumably if AMD hasn't patented it by now, they weren't ever going to patent it. CPUs take years to develop, so by the time something shows up in marketing slides (ie. release is imminent in a few months) it would have been years since the idea was first conceived.

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

#78

Post by pkilgore »

dmatech wrote: post #43
ledoge wrote: post #14

Those slides aren't the only thing they copied: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669508

So they cited Ian's 2016 article (which contained the AMD diagrams), then basically rendered those same diagrams in black and white in the patent. Pretty lazy.

You never use StackOverflow or similar?

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

#79

Post by TomVDB »

Sparkyte wrote: post #58

Definitely a lawsuit is going to come of this. I'm not even talking the blatent copy of the presentation but the blatent patenting of memory on interposer. This is basically what AMD's 2016 patent encompases for much of Ryzen's design architecture especially with HBM. Now I think where Intel might be in the right is that they will claim improvement on AMD's patent and design. But it will be a stretch considering they…

The “NAL” statement wasn’t necessary: it was totally obvious the moment you wrote “definitely.”

There’s a 99.999% certainty that this non-issue will NOT result in a lawsuit.

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

#80

Post by pkilgore »

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…

Relevant statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/273

Real answer though is "it depends", so ask a lawyer about specific facts.

Post reply on HN