patents and logic cores

[Günter Dannoritzer]

Hi,

I have been searching in the mailing list archives for patents and how
they apply to logic cores. John Dalton did some interesting comparison
back in 2003 about the meaning of patents in the US and Australia.

What I am looking for, and did not find an answer in the archive is, how
do patents apply to the development of logic cores? Let's say I
implement an algorithm as explained and claimed by a national patent. Is
the design of that algorithm in HDL a patent infringement or is the
implementation of the HDL on a FPGA or ASIC the patent infringement?

Now to the national issue. I guess an infringement only applies to a
country where the patent is issued from. So in case of a national
patent, if that patent has not been issued in any other country, I would
be able to implement the algorithm and use it in all other countries,
except for the one country the patent has been issued from, without
causing an infringement?

How does that apply to opencores now? As the server is placed in one
country would it be possible to implement algorithms and post them on
opencores that are protected by a national patent, not issued in the
country the server is placed at?

I guess due to the mirror server that exist it would require to consider
patents issued in each country a mirror server is placed?

Thanks for anyone shedding some light on this topic.

Cheers,

Guenter



_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Lauro, John]

In most places, it's not infringing on a patent if it's for personal
use, so you can build it in an FPGA without issue.  In the USA, just
making a device for personal use can be considered infringing, but it
is highly unlikely of a law suite.  Most likely case would be a cease
and desist letter, and have to take files off of web sites, etc...

I am not a lawyer, but I would suspect that building a FPGA or ASCIC
wouldn't be a problem for a company as a proof of concept test, but
any issue (royalty payments, etc...) should be worked out first with
the patent holder, or at a minimum prior to any advertising, selling,
etc...

I would suspect it depends on the language of the patent if writing
the algorithm in HDL would be infringing, or making an FPGA would be.

-----Original Message-----
From: cores-bounces@... [mailto:cores-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Günter Dannoritzer
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:55 AM
To: Discussion list about free open source IP cores
Subject: [oc] patents and logic cores

Hi,

I have been searching in the mailing list archives for patents and how
they apply to logic cores. John Dalton did some interesting comparison
back in 2003 about the meaning of patents in the US and Australia.

What I am looking for, and did not find an answer in the archive is,
how
do patents apply to the development of logic cores? Let's say I
implement an algorithm as explained and claimed by a national patent.
Is
the design of that algorithm in HDL a patent infringement or is the
implementation of the HDL on a FPGA or ASIC the patent infringement?

Now to the national issue. I guess an infringement only applies to a
country where the patent is issued from. So in case of a national
patent, if that patent has not been issued in any other country, I
would
be able to implement the algorithm and use it in all other countries,
except for the one country the patent has been issued from, without
causing an infringement?

How does that apply to opencores now? As the server is placed in one
country would it be possible to implement algorithms and post them on
opencores that are protected by a national patent, not issued in the
country the server is placed at?

I guess due to the mirror server that exist it would require to
consider
patents issued in each country a mirror server is placed?

Thanks for anyone shedding some light on this topic.

Cheers,

Guenter



_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores
_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[tkafafi]

Hi Guenter,
I don't know the answer to the legal technicalities you are asking, but I
would recommend you stay away from pattent protected stuff. Any
lawsuit will bring you lots of headaches and financial harm even if your
action is not necesarily illegal.

Thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: Günter Dannoritzer<dannoritzer@w...>
To:
Date: Sat Sep 29 14:54:38 CEST 2007
Subject: [oc] patents and logic cores

> Hi,
>
> I have been searching in the mailing list archives for patents and
> how
> they apply to logic cores. John Dalton did some interesting
> comparison
> back in 2003 about the meaning of patents in the US and Australia.
> What I am looking for, and did not find an answer in the archive
> is, how
> do patents apply to the development of logic cores? Let's say I
> implement an algorithm as explained and claimed by a national
> patent. Is
> the design of that algorithm in HDL a patent infringement or is the
> implementation of the HDL on a FPGA or ASIC the patent
> infringement?
> Now to the national issue. I guess an infringement only applies to
> a
> country where the patent is issued from. So in case of a national
> patent, if that patent has not been issued in any other country, I
> would
> be able to implement the algorithm and use it in all other
> countries,
> except for the one country the patent has been issued from, without
> causing an infringement?
> How does that apply to opencores now? As the server is placed in
> one
> country would it be possible to implement algorithms and post them
> on
> opencores that are protected by a national patent, not issued in
> the
> country the server is placed at?
> I guess due to the mirror server that exist it would require to
> consider
> patents issued in each country a mirror server is placed?
> Thanks for anyone shedding some light on this topic.
> Cheers,
> Guenter
>
>

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Richard Tierney-2]

You need to step back a bit. What is a patent?

Historically, individuals who made commercially-significant discoveries
would keep them secret, since this was the only way to protect them.
This wasn't in the interests of the state, who needed a mechanism to
ensure disclosure.

The modern patent dates from 17th-century England. It was an agreement
between the inventor and the government: the inventor provided written
full disclosure and, in return, the government granted the inventor a
limited-period monopoly on the commercial exploitation of that
invention. Of course, the British government had no way of granting a
monopoly in any other country, and the same remains true today, for all
national governments. The inventor therefore had (and still has) to make
a choice: was it better to provide disclosure in return for the limited
monopoly, or was it better to keep the invention secret, which might
give a better long-term return, particularly in international markets?

The situation is exactly the same today. Different national governments
have different standards for what constitutes an 'invention' (in the US,
for example, you can get a patent on a perpetual motion machine, among
many other other absurd things), but national law still does not, and
cannot, extend across national frontiers. If you want to patent an
'invention', you first start by finding out where your markets are, and
then you take out national patents in those markets. Some countries may
allow a monopoly for an 'international' patent of some sort (a European
patent, for example); that's a decision that is made by the government
of that country.

Back to your questions:

1 - the location of a 'server', whatever that is, can make no
difference. All that matters is commercial exploitation. Note that, if
you give something away for free in a territory in which a patent-holder
has a commerical monopoly right, then they clearly have a case against
you, but only in that territory.

2 - Knowledge is free, and is not protected by most governments (not by
patent, anyway). Those that do protect knowledge protect it by the
threat or use of violence (of course, that's the only way that any
government can actually govern, but that's a different matter). Again,
all that matters (for a patent) is commercial exploitation.

3 - 'Algorithms' cannot be patented in many countries; certainly not the
UK, probably nowhere in Europe. It may be possible to patent an
'algorithm' in the US; I don't know and don't care (I suspect that it
is, given the RSA encryption patent [using algorithms which,
incidentally, had already long been developed and used by the British]).

4 - If it's not already obvious, and to elmininate any confusion: you
can do anything you want with the information contained in a national
patent but, if you infringe the inventor's monopoly rights in that
country, you may end up in a court in that country, if you let them
catch you.
_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Günter Dannoritzer]

Thanks Richard for that great explanation.

Richard Tierney wrote:
[...]

>
> The situation is exactly the same today. Different national governments
> have different standards for what constitutes an 'invention' (in the US,
> for example, you can get a patent on a perpetual motion machine, among
> many other other absurd things), but national law still does not, and
> cannot, extend across national frontiers. If you want to patent an
> 'invention', you first start by finding out where your markets are, and
> then you take out national patents in those markets. Some countries may
> allow a monopoly for an 'international' patent of some sort (a European
> patent, for example); that's a decision that is made by the government
> of that country.
>  

This is were I feel it is getting hairy. To figure out what does really
apply to my case.

I give you an example. I am looking for a pipelined FFT processor for my
opencores project. Doing a google search the first hit is this paper:

http://ipdps.cc.gatech.edu/1996/PAPERS/S19/HE/HE.PDF

It really explains the processor well and also is a very efficient in
terms of FPGA usage. Now guess what, it is protected by a US patent and
doing a search on the EPO page it has a EPO publication number assigned
and is registered with the World IP Organization.

Now I know that in Europe algorithms cannot really be patented so far
and me living in Germany the US patent would not really affect me. But
with all this motion at the moment about the intellectual property laws
getting unified all over Europe I am a bit unsure what all this other
stuff with the world IP organization has to do with it.


> Back to your questions:
>
> 1 - the location of a 'server', whatever that is, can make no
> difference. All that matters is commercial exploitation. Note that, if
> you give something away for free in a territory in which a patent-holder
> has a commerical monopoly right, then they clearly have a case against
> you, but only in that territory.

Yes, that is where I thought the server location would come in. For
example, if the server is hosted in the US, the company could forbid to
publish the project because of the patent law in that country, where as
when the server would be in another country, US law would not really
have an influence on it.

[...]

>
> 4 - If it's not already obvious, and to elmininate any confusion: you
> can do anything you want with the information contained in a national
> patent but, if you infringe the inventor's monopoly rights in that
> country, you may end up in a court in that country, if you let them
> catch you.

And this is were it becomes complicated with opencores, as a project is
public available. So it becomes important to check first before causing
some violation.

So there are actually two ways to look at it from an opencores
development project. One is from the developers point of view. What laws
 are valid for the developer or the team of developers.

The other question is what laws would apply to a user of that project.

I guess it is not the task of the developers on opencores to verify all
national laws and whether their implementation would violent one of them.

So what is the recommendation here? I guess for a development team,
check that your national laws are met?

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Günter Dannoritzer]

tkafafi@... wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> I don't know the answer to the legal technicalities you are asking, but I
> would recommend you stay away from pattent protected stuff. Any
> lawsuit will bring you lots of headaches and financial harm even if your
> action is not necesarily illegal.
>

I would agree with you, but it seems like if people have patent
something, they tend to be more open with spreading the word about their
work. So for someone trying to learn something new, there might be a
point to look into a patented work.

I have no interest in any commercial use of it. For me it is just a
learning experience, but also would like to share it on opencores. That
is where the legal issues comes in.

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Günter Dannoritzer]

Lauro, John wrote:
> In most places, it's not infringing on a patent if it's for personal
> use, so you can build it in an FPGA without issue.  In the USA, just
> making a device for personal use can be considered infringing, but it
> is highly unlikely of a law suite.  Most likely case would be a cease
> and desist letter, and have to take files off of web sites, etc...

Now that brings up an interesting point. I remember a couple of years
back ShengYu Shen did an ARM core project and got in trouble:

http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/nnARM/overview

I don't recall what he violated in detail. Anyhow, it seems like he
never went on with development, but now there are two more ARM core
projects on opencores, that seem not to have those problems? Or did the
company just got tiered of pursuing them?

Now I don't know where ShengYu is living that the company had the power
to put that pressure on him. But obviously they must have had a case so
that he took off his project.

This drifts now off a bit, but looking at opencores, then there are more
MIPS based processor projects than ARM based ones. I know there a
several books available that teach Computer architecture based on the
MIPS processor, but the ARM is also very well documented and especially
popular. So I wonder why is it that so many MIPS projects are published
and not ARM ones? Is the ARM company just more eager keeping those
projects off or are there more patents on the ARM than on the MIPS?

If I remember right there were some instructions on the MIPS that were
patented until last year and people kept them out of the published projects.

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[john.nistler]

It is my understanding that in regards to a National patent, the
actual building of the algorithm in HDL is considered infringment,
especially if you then post it for open access with the intent to earn
income off of the design.  It is true that for personal use, any one
individual can use a patent, but this does not apply to companies.

Now in regards to National Patents, technically speaking, if you do
not sell the patent in a country where the patent is protected it is
difficult for the patent owner to pursue you and in some cases, it is
virtually impossible (China) to protect a patent. But today, many
national patents are also immediately filed as an international patent
and under International patent law, even if the national patent is not
granted at the time you use it, the application time period for
international patent applies.  Thus you can find that after the fact
of going to a country where a National patent does not exist you can
be held responsible for utilizing a known patent if it fell under
international patent protection.

Please note, this is my understanding from our patent lawyers.  You
are better off using a GPL or similiar type of licensed core.  Even
Libraries can be protected and do to the large number of commerce
treaties between the US and other countries a US patent is typically
protected in countries even if a National patent had not been issued.

I hate to say it, but the legal issue of open source VHDL code has
gotten many innovators into financial trouble.

Texasjohn

----- Original Message -----
From: Lauro, John<jlauro@u...>
To:
Date: Mon Oct  1 02:46:53 CEST 2007
Subject: [oc] patents and logic cores

> In most places, it's not infringing on a patent if it's for
> personal
> use, so you can build it in an FPGA without issue. In the USA, just
> making a device for personal use can be considered infringing, but
> it
> is highly unlikely of a law suite. Most likely case would be a
> cease
> and desist letter, and have to take files off of web sites, etc...
> I am not a lawyer, but I would suspect that building a FPGA or
> ASCIC
> wouldn't be a problem for a company as a proof of concept test, but
> any issue (royalty payments, etc...) should be worked out first
> with
> the patent holder, or at a minimum prior to any advertising,
> selling,
> etc...
> I would suspect it depends on the language of the patent if writing
> the algorithm in HDL would be infringing, or making an FPGA would
> be.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cores-bounces at opencores.org [mailto:cores-bounces at
> opencores.org]
> On Behalf Of Günter Dannoritzer
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:55 AM
> To: Discussion list about free open source IP cores
> Subject: [oc] patents and logic cores
> Hi,
> I have been searching in the mailing list archives for patents and
> how
> they apply to logic cores. John Dalton did some interesting
> comparison
> back in 2003 about the meaning of patents in the US and Australia.
> What I am looking for, and did not find an answer in the archive
> is,
> how
> do patents apply to the development of logic cores? Let's say I
> implement an algorithm as explained and claimed by a national
> patent.
> Is
> the design of that algorithm in HDL a patent infringement or is the
> implementation of the HDL on a FPGA or ASIC the patent
> infringement?
> Now to the national issue. I guess an infringement only applies to
> a
> country where the patent is issued from. So in case of a national
> patent, if that patent has not been issued in any other country, I
> would
> be able to implement the algorithm and use it in all other
> countries,
> except for the one country the patent has been issued from, without
> causing an infringement?
> How does that apply to opencores now? As the server is placed in
> one
> country would it be possible to implement algorithms and post them
> on
> opencores that are protected by a national patent, not issued in
> the
> country the server is placed at?
> I guess due to the mirror server that exist it would require to
> consider
> patents issued in each country a mirror server is placed?
> Thanks for anyone shedding some light on this topic.
> Cheers,
> Guenter
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores 
>
>

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Günter Dannoritzer <dannoritzer@...> wrote:

> Now I know that in Europe algorithms cannot really be patented so far
> and me living in Germany the US patent would not really affect me.

That's not entirely true. Clearly, Par.52 EPA clearly declares program
code as not patentable, we have to suffer on thousands over thousands
of software patents. And seems to be impossible to hold the perps in
EPO and politics responsible for thei damage they did and continue to
do to our IT industry. (you probably know which dirty role especially
our Secretary of Justice plays in that game and what threat her actions
are to our democratic society are ;-o).
This is the point where science becomes political (-> Faust case) :(

As long as you've got no direct commercial interest, I suggest ignoring
the patents threat for your works, but instead *fight* on the political
front line. The FFII provided material is a good starting point:
-> http://www.ffii.org/

> But with all this motion at the moment about the intellectual property
> laws getting unified all over Europe I am a bit unsure what all this
> other stuff with the world IP organization has to do with it.

Well, the word "unification" IMHO is faar too harmless. I'd prefer the
German word "Gleichschaltung" (perhaps "equilibrium" is an adequate
translation), which has an special meaning in our country.

> > Back to your questions:
> >
> > 1 - the location of a 'server', whatever that is, can make no
> > difference. All that matters is commercial exploitation. Note that, if
> > you give something away for free in a territory in which a patent-holder
> > has a commerical monopoly right, then they clearly have a case against
> > you, but only in that territory.
>
> Yes, that is where I thought the server location would come in. For
> example, if the server is hosted in the US, the company could forbid to
> publish the project because of the patent law in that country, where as
> when the server would be in another country, US law would not really
> have an influence on it.

At this point, true (IANAL). But then you should never go to the US again.
(besides there're enough reasons for keeping out there - at least in the
current policital situation - eg. being treated as a potential terrorist
when coming from Europe ;-o)

> > 4 - If it's not already obvious, and to elmininate any confusion: you
> > can do anything you want with the information contained in a national
> > patent but, if you infringe the inventor's monopoly rights in that
> > country, you may end up in a court in that country, if you let them
> > catch you.
>
> And this is were it becomes complicated with opencores, as a project is
> public available. So it becomes important to check first before causing
> some violation.

The question is: can some monopoly right be enforced against the authors ?
For example, in Germany I don't have to care about national U$ patents
(at least long as or politics don't manage to surrender to U$, as they're
currently trying to do in many ways ;-o).

> I guess it is not the task of the developers on opencores to verify all
> national laws and whether their implementation would violent one of them.

ACK. This isn't even possible. We'd to pay dozens of lawyers day
per day just to look for possible violations. Wo could afford this ?

The best, IMHO, is - as a developer - not to care about patents at all,
and - as a free person - take *ANY* means necessary to take down the
whole patent system. (actually, if I had the proper budget available,
I'd punch them really hard).


cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
  http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
        http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Richard Herveille]

My 2cents on the whole problem; I dived in deep and this is my personal
opinion ...

The original idea behind the patent system is not bad; it provides
protection for the initial developer and opens their invention for
improvements by others.
This provided a way for a developer to open the R&D to others so others
could improve the idea, while still protecting the invention. So simply
copying the idea would be illegal.

However lately (especially in the US) the patent system has turned into a
cash cow. Simply forgetting the "improvements by others" and only using the
"protection" part. Nowadays the patent holder with the most cash (i.e. can
survive in court the longest) wins. This is *NOT* what patents are about.

The entire patent system (especially in the US) has gotten so opaque that
even big companies cannot handle it anymore; evidence the many patent
infringement court cases. Also the "improvement by others" part is
completely ignored.
In my opinion this limits development. We all want (open) standards to
ensure interoperability. No closed, proprietary systems anymore. But this
inherently means we need to use some 'technology' that has been patented by
somebody somewhere.

The European take on patents is more in line with the original idea,
although multinationals are gaining in their push for a more US like
approach. Fortunately in Europe you still need a touchable device to patent.
So an idea cannot be patented, neither is software (which is not touchable).
An algorithm cannot be patented either, unless you implement it in a device.
The patent then covers "A device to ....".

A patent only holds for commercial activities in the country where a patent
is valid. This means if you develop a device that contains technology that
is patented in the US and you make sure that no part of your device ever
touches US soil then you can safely sell the device (but not in the US).
Obviously the original US patent holder wont like you anymore and, if you
make enough money, might use political pressure against you. However as long
as you don’t sell oil you should be safe from invading forces :p

As said before, patents hold for commercial activities. You are allowed to
develop the code which is patented. You are even allowed to publish it (it
is already publish in the patent anyways). Anybody can take your code an
look at it. This is all legal, but might not be appreciated by the original
patent holder.
If somebody takes your code for implementation in a commercial device then
it's that person's responsibility to handle any patent/licensing
issues/fees.
For example the I2C code on OpenCores can safely be downloaded and used by
anybody. However if you implement it in a commercial device you have to
contact Philips to discuss licensing fees (for as long as the original
patent is valid).

Now political pressure can be applied even without patents. For example ARM
holds a patent on the THUMB instruction set architecture. This means you
could safely implement an ARM, as long as you leave out the THUMB
instructions (and other parts that might be patented). However even here
money talks ... ARM successfully pressured organizations (including
OpenCores) to remove any implementations of ARM processors, even though it
is legal to make and publish these implementations. It simply boils down to
who holds up in court the longest.


Finally some thoughts on the current patent law system.
Technology companies want to relax the patent laws, returning to the
original idea of "improvements by others" instead of "protection", because
any device nowadays inherently violates some patent one way or another and
it is impossible to check all patents. So that means a company releases a
product and then has to wait until it gets sued to figure out whether or not
it violated a patent. And with the ridiculous damage claims and awards this
can break a company.

On the other hand medical companies want much stricter patent laws, because
their product is covered by one (or only a few) patents, so it is much
easier to check. Funny enough the most important cases are willingly
violated, for example AIDS medicine which is ridiculously expensive due to
the high licensing costs. So countries violate the patent to generate
generic versions of the drugs in the name of public health protection (which
makes perfect sense to me).

Another weird results of the current system ... The Human Genome Project
made an effort to identify and list the entire human genome system. There's
1 US company that identified the gene that causes increased risk of breast
cancer a few days before the Human Genome Project did. They applied for a
patent and got it...
How can you get a patent on my genes??? Ok, they got a patent for the
identification of that particular gene, but still it's my gene.
Anyways now the medicine to check for increased risk of breast cancer is
1000 times more expensive than it would have been otherwise, simply because
that company now charges licensing fees.
So is the current patent system an improvement for humanity? No way, it's a
way to make companies rich, but doesn't care about the people. Which fits in
the current UCA (United Corporations of America) political climate.

Again my personal views, based on real life facts.

Richard




-----Original Message-----
From: cores-bounces@... [mailto:cores-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Enrico Weigelt
Sent: 17 April 2008 22:27
To: Discussion list about free open source IP cores
Subject: Re: [oc] patents and logic cores

* Günter Dannoritzer <dannoritzer@...> wrote:

> Now I know that in Europe algorithms cannot really be patented so far
> and me living in Germany the US patent would not really affect me.

That's not entirely true. Clearly, Par.52 EPA clearly declares program
code as not patentable, we have to suffer on thousands over thousands
of software patents. And seems to be impossible to hold the perps in
EPO and politics responsible for thei damage they did and continue to
do to our IT industry. (you probably know which dirty role especially
our Secretary of Justice plays in that game and what threat her actions
are to our democratic society are ;-o).
This is the point where science becomes political (-> Faust case) :(

As long as you've got no direct commercial interest, I suggest ignoring
the patents threat for your works, but instead *fight* on the political
front line. The FFII provided material is a good starting point:
-> http://www.ffii.org/

> But with all this motion at the moment about the intellectual property
> laws getting unified all over Europe I am a bit unsure what all this
> other stuff with the world IP organization has to do with it.

Well, the word "unification" IMHO is faar too harmless. I'd prefer the
German word "Gleichschaltung" (perhaps "equilibrium" is an adequate
translation), which has an special meaning in our country.

> > Back to your questions:
> >
> > 1 - the location of a 'server', whatever that is, can make no
> > difference. All that matters is commercial exploitation. Note that, if
> > you give something away for free in a territory in which a patent-holder
> > has a commerical monopoly right, then they clearly have a case against
> > you, but only in that territory.
>
> Yes, that is where I thought the server location would come in. For
> example, if the server is hosted in the US, the company could forbid to
> publish the project because of the patent law in that country, where as
> when the server would be in another country, US law would not really
> have an influence on it.

At this point, true (IANAL). But then you should never go to the US again.
(besides there're enough reasons for keeping out there - at least in the
current policital situation - eg. being treated as a potential terrorist
when coming from Europe ;-o)

> > 4 - If it's not already obvious, and to elmininate any confusion: you
> > can do anything you want with the information contained in a national
> > patent but, if you infringe the inventor's monopoly rights in that
> > country, you may end up in a court in that country, if you let them
> > catch you.
>
> And this is were it becomes complicated with opencores, as a project is
> public available. So it becomes important to check first before causing
> some violation.

The question is: can some monopoly right be enforced against the authors ?
For example, in Germany I don't have to care about national U$ patents
(at least long as or politics don't manage to surrender to U$, as they're
currently trying to do in many ways ;-o).

> I guess it is not the task of the developers on opencores to verify all
> national laws and whether their implementation would violent one of them.

ACK. This isn't even possible. We'd to pay dozens of lawyers day
per day just to look for possible violations. Wo could afford this ?

The best, IMHO, is - as a developer - not to care about patents at all,
and - as a free person - take *ANY* means necessary to take down the
whole patent system. (actually, if I had the proper budget available,
I'd punch them really hard).


cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
  http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
        http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[John Day]

At 08:37 AM 4/18/2008, Richard Herveille wrote:
>For example the I2C code on OpenCores can safely be downloaded and used by
>anybody. However if you implement it in a commercial device you have to
>contact Philips to discuss licensing fees (for as long as the original
>patent is valid).

I think the original patent (of 1987) expired in 2005, I think if you
check the NXP website you will find some new rule. This also helps
explain why there are now so many more I2C bus devices hitting the
market and why I2C is becoming ubiquitous in micros of various types.

John



_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Richard Herveille]

The European patent expired before the US patent.
I2C was already widely used before the patents expired, so I wouldn't
suggest it is more abundant now than it was then.
I simply used this as an example, don't put too much weight on it.

Richard


-----Original Message-----
From: cores-bounces@... [mailto:cores-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of John Day
Sent: 21 April 2008 22:36
To: Discussion list about free open source IP cores; weigelt@...;
'Discussion list about free open source IP cores'
Subject: RE: [oc] patents and logic cores

At 08:37 AM 4/18/2008, Richard Herveille wrote:
>For example the I2C code on OpenCores can safely be downloaded and used by
>anybody. However if you implement it in a commercial device you have to
>contact Philips to discuss licensing fees (for as long as the original
>patent is valid).

I think the original patent (of 1987) expired in 2005, I think if you
check the NXP website you will find some new rule. This also helps
explain why there are now so many more I2C bus devices hitting the
market and why I2C is becoming ubiquitous in micros of various types.

John



_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Richard Herveille <richard@...> wrote:

Hi,

> The original idea behind the patent system is not bad; it provides
> protection for the initial developer and opens their invention for
> improvements by others.

that's long, long time ago ...
BTW: the *original* meaning of patents, IMHO, was the right to
piracy in the name of the crown - that actually fits the current
situation very well.

> However lately (especially in the US) the patent system has turned into a
> cash cow. Simply forgetting the "improvements by others" and only using the
> "protection" part. Nowadays the patent holder with the most cash (i.e. can
> survive in court the longest) wins. This is *NOT* what patents are about.

Right, so even several courts (IMHO) are trying to limit patentability.

> In my opinion this limits development. We all want (open) standards to
> ensure interoperability. No closed, proprietary systems anymore. But this
> inherently means we need to use some 'technology' that has been patented
> by somebody somewhere.

Or to get rid of the whole patent system.

> The European take on patents is more in line with the original idea,
> although multinationals are gaining in their push for a more US like approach.

Even worse, much worse: they try to implement an *unlimited* patent system
which judges directly coming from within the patent office. In fact, this
is a major break with the primary principle of separation of powers, so
anti-constitutional in practically all EU states.

> Fortunately in Europe you still need a touchable device to patent.
> So an idea cannot be patented, neither is software (which is not touchable).
> An algorithm cannot be patented either, unless you implement it in a device.
> The patent then covers "A device to ....".

Couldn't be more far from truth: the EPA has granted ten-thousands of pure
software patents. Of course in direct violation of the legal situation.
Instead of correcting their mistakes, they're working very hard on
"adapting the legal situation to the current practise" - in other words:
try to legalize their illegal actions. It took us a hard fight to stop
at least the worst parts in the EP.

In fact, the whole EU is totally anti-constitutional, and lots of people
already already pressed criminal charges on high treason against lot's
of politicians.

> However as long as you don’t sell oil you should be safe from invading forces :p

I wouldn't counton that ...

> As said before, patents hold for commercial activities. You are allowed to
> develop the code which is patented. You are even allowed to publish it (it
> is already publish in the patent anyways).

No, at least not in the EU. Publishing the code already means an infrignment,
since you allow other people to use the so called "invention" and so hurt
the patent holder's commericial interests.

> Now political pressure can be applied even without patents. For example ARM
> holds a patent on the THUMB instruction set architecture. This means you
> could safely implement an ARM, as long as you leave out the THUMB
> instructions (and other parts that might be patented).

If the patent claims the instruction set itself (not just an specific
implementation), it already is an software patent. Such patents claims
don't have anything to do with invention protection, but just are weapons
for legal wars.

> However even here money talks ... ARM successfully pressured organizations
> (including OpenCores) to remove any implementations of ARM processors, even
> though it is legal to make and publish these implementations. It simply boils
> down to who holds up in court the longest.

ACK. Even totally illegal patents are good weapons for those who have enough
money to file a suit.

> Finally some thoughts on the current patent law system.
> Technology companies want to relax the patent laws, returning to the
> original idea of "improvements by others" instead of "protection", because
> any device nowadays inherently violates some patent one way or another and
> it is impossible to check all patents. So that means a company releases a
> product and then has to wait until it gets sued to figure out whether or not
> it violated a patent. And with the ridiculous damage claims and awards this
> can break a company.

IMHO, you mixed up "relax" and "strict". An "relaxed" patent system (as
currently in installation process in the institutionalized criminility
called "EU") means: you can claim more and more things ...

But: it's interesting to see that the people who're actually doing innovation
are gainst universal patentability.

> On the other hand medical companies want much stricter patent laws, because
> their product is covered by one (or only a few) patents, so it is much
> easier to check.

They even want patents on purely natural things, eg. genomes.
Perhaps you'll someday have to pay license fes, just because you're born ;-o

> Funny enough the most important cases are willingly violated, for example AIDS
> medicine which is ridiculously expensive due to the high licensing costs.
> So countries violate the patent to generate generic versions of the drugs in
> the name of public health protection (which makes perfect sense to me).

Yep, otherwise these countries would to genocide.
 
> Another weird results of the current system ... The Human Genome Project
> made an effort to identify and list the entire human genome system. There's
> 1 US company that identified the gene that causes increased risk of breast
> cancer a few days before the Human Genome Project did. They applied for a
> patent and got it...

In those cases, I think it's perfectly legal for people who are about to
die of cancer because they can't pay the patented medicine, to kill the
responsible folks.


cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
  http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
        http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores