SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll • Hacker News Board

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#71

Post by jhgb » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

cecilpl2 wrote: post #46

ohazi wrote: post #6

> > The cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system. [...] > Dynamic ram? Can I poke fun at them for not knowing what RAM is? Yes I can. > The above paragraph succinctly describes malloc(), which is perhaps one of the most fundamental advancements in modern computing. The problem is that Al didn’t invent it. Memory management (the ability to take RAM…

You are mistaken. The lawsuit itself is clearly referring to dynamic memory allocation. It refers to "static or dynamic ram" to mean RAM in general, but the paragraph has nothing to do with the characteristics of SRAM vs DRAM. From page 6 of the lawsuit [0]: > in fixed function implementations all possible functional requirements of the necessary data processing must be implemented on the silicon regardless of the fi…

> As you can see, it's saying that rather than pinning RAM (as previous fixed-function approaches did in the 80s), this system allows you to request memory dynamically

I must have missed the "as you can see" part since I see nothing in the quoted passages that would contradict the notion of a device configured by the contents of some SRAM or DRAM cells. At the very best one could say that the text might be ambiguous. After all, "cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system" is a statement that you could easily make about a bog-standard von Neumann computer as well.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#72

Post by simondotau » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #63

ohazi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lawsuit is decidedly not referring to dynamic memory allocation. There's no way to "request" a runtime-specified amount of memory dynamically here. The memory in question is a tiny, fixed-size block of RAM inside the chip that's directly connected to the various logic blocks. There is no way to allocate or request anything -- that memory is all you've got, and all of the bits have been spoken for by the time the…

What chance does our legal system have of gauging the validity of these patents when we can't even get a forum of technical people, with no horse in the race, to agree on what these things mean?

In a reasonable world, benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the patent holder when there is genuine confusion. It should be incumbent upon the filer to describe their invention in a way that is clear to experts in that relevant field.

Sadly I suspect the world we live in isn't so reasonable.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#73

Post by a1371 » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:05 AM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #45

Me: software engr, retired; also patent agent who worked in Google Patent Litigation. A rookie mistake is reading the TEXT of a patent. A pro looks only at the claims. The text is only there to "support" the claims, which boils down to using the same words. Cynical, I know. Claims unfortunately look like gibberish if you're unschooled, but "construing" them is an early step in a trial, and often if you get a bad clai…

How did you learn to read the claims?

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#74

Post by hellbannedguy » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

ww520 wrote: post #58

(Note that none of the following is legal advice.) One tip on reading patent - ignore most of the diagrams and description, and go straight to the claims. The claims are the only valid part of the patent. In this case, all the static/dynamic RAM, signals, memory cache, and malloc stuffs are irrelevant and misdirection. This patent has only 1 claim [1]. The claim has a series of elements making a number of conditions…

Thank you. I'm glad I stopped by HN today. You write well.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#75

Post by ngcc_hk » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

ww520 wrote: post #58

(Note that none of the following is legal advice.) One tip on reading patent - ignore most of the diagrams and description, and go straight to the claims. The claims are the only valid part of the patent. In this case, all the static/dynamic RAM, signals, memory cache, and malloc stuffs are irrelevant and misdirection. This patent has only 1 claim [1]. The claim has a series of elements making a number of conditions…

Great analysis. I bought from sparkfun, but they should be taken better advice to deal with it. The article is not good enough as defence, just like a stand or a wish more.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#76

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

a1371 wrote: post #73

AlbertCory wrote: post #45

Me: software engr, retired; also patent agent who worked in Google Patent Litigation. A rookie mistake is reading the TEXT of a patent. A pro looks only at the claims. The text is only there to "support" the claims, which boils down to using the same words. Cynical, I know. Claims unfortunately look like gibberish if you're unschooled, but "construing" them is an early step in a trial, and often if you get a bad clai…

How did you learn to read the claims?

I took the Kayten course [1] to review for the Patent Bar exam. It was three days, and then I spent a couple months reviewing all the old exam questions.

[1] https://passingpatentbarwithprg.tumblr.com/post/9992218513/w...

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#77

Post by hellbannedguy » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #5

I wonder if it's possible to make some sort of patent troll insurance company. Basically a company that attempts to collect as many patents as possible to weaponize against trolls and then provides legal protection to clients from trolls. The clients can share their patents with the insurance company too to help them become more powerful. Then when sued by a troll the insurance company goes scorched earth to destroy…

This is a good idea.

I'm surprised a clever 501c3 isn't quietly buying up patents, and burying them, or using them as legal weapons against companies that abuse the patent system.

Just did a quick search, and there is a company.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-takes-another-step-t...

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#78

Post by sidewndr46 » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #63

ohazi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lawsuit is decidedly not referring to dynamic memory allocation. There's no way to "request" a runtime-specified amount of memory dynamically here. The memory in question is a tiny, fixed-size block of RAM inside the chip that's directly connected to the various logic blocks. There is no way to allocate or request anything -- that memory is all you've got, and all of the bits have been spoken for by the time the…

What chance does our legal system have of gauging the validity of these patents when we can't even get a forum of technical people, with no horse in the race, to agree on what these things mean?

My understanding is that this is basically the endgame of all patents related to computing. You want to patent something so vague and poorly defined that it can be used to make a claim against anything.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#79

Post by nixpulvis » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

kens wrote: post #68

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 p…

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.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#80

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:37 AM UTC

The patent is indeed expired (there's a website that will tell you that date, but I forget its URL), but they can still sue for infringement that took place before the expiration date.

If the total damages are small (as it appears), then you are probably costing them more than the suit is worth. So I'd expect them to offer to settle for a token amount, to avoid having an official loss on the record. But IANAL and this is not legal advice.