Microchip looses the plot ?

Jim:

You've referred to and quoted the patents Microchip are suing over.

You've been in this business long enough to know that the Abstract and the Body of the Patent are *not* the Claims of the patent.

Yet you're pulling sentences from the Abstract and Body to make your argument.

I don't know the validity of the suit.

I *do* know that it will be fought on the *CLAIMS* of the patent.

If you want us to take the argument you're proposing seriously, how about you repost it with Claim 1 substituted for your current quote from the patent?

At least then you would have given us *enough* *information* to consider the story...

cheers, Rich. [Yes, I use PICs. Hell, I use Cypress stuff, VIA stuff, ...]

This stuff is public domain, and I gave the Patent numbers, so it is real easy to look this up, at uspto.....

but under claims, 1, we have

"What is claimed is:

1. An Integrated Circuit (IC) package comprising, in combination: an IC chip with a microcontroller having a data bus;

a first pin electrically coupled to said microcontroller wherein said first pin functions as a power supply pin;

a second pin electrically coupled to said microcontroller wherein said second pin functions as a grounding pin; and

a plurality of third pins electrically coupled to said microcontroller wherein said plurality of third pins are function pins, at least one of said plurality of third pins being a multiple function pin, a total number of said first pin, said second pin, and said plurality of third pins is at least three and one of less than or equal to a bus width of said data bus. "

Read the whole patent(s), and ponder just how much prior art there is, and how "those skilled in the art" would consider this a complete no-brainer.

The legal teams will do well, and Zilog will get a lot of free publicity, but this so clearly lacks merit that it can only make Microchip's senior management look plain silly/stupid.

I will follow this with keen interest.

-jg

Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?

Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged patents should be removed from their position?

Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have? If not, it should be.

Joe Butler wrote: [...]

You would be doing him a favor.

What would be the upside? The patent office is already a sucky place to work, probably the engineering employer of last resort.

It does not make Zilog et al look to bright. Any semi manufacturer worth his salt will have a watch on patent applications by their competitors. Before the patent is granted there is an opportunity for them to object to the patent - in this case on the grounds of prior art. I wonder why they didn't because it is hard to see how it would have been granted if they had objected.

Ian

I thought that the patent clerk was supposed to do a search for prior art. If they don't carry out a good search, they are doing a disservice to all granted patentee's that have already paid out money to the Patent Office.

of

have?

his

didn't

They are supposed to. Several of my patents were challenged by the patent office on the grounds of prior art, which they cite. You have to demonstrate either a material difference in your invention or say why the prior art does not apply.

I get the impression that applications for US patents are handled differently depending on who the applicant is.

Ian

...Or perhaps how the applicant _treats_ them.

I've been a passive observer of the _handling_ of patent clerks... where a lot was done to _help_ them decide in favor. (I suppose it could be called, "perks for clerks.") When you are paying your patent attorneys 50k/month and more, there's a lot of cash-flow available. May have been an unusual circumstance I saw, though. Can't say.

Jon

Yes, but that's a no-contest anyway :)

Remember, they are only clerks...

Patents are merely a license to litigate; some companies collect patents because it helps the stockholder/investment side. It they are never contested, it does not matter how 'stupid' they are.

Patents also need to be actively protected/defended. Microchip also are on thin-ice, because they appear to have waited rather a long time to activate this one (5,847,450). Why little Zilog ? Did they annoy Microchip some way ?

I should also add Motorola(Freescale), EM Marin, the Watch industry, and pretty much the whole smart card industry, as targets Microchip will have to sue, to show diligent defense of this patent. [IO

Exacerbated in the US by allowing software patents too. Let's hope we continue to avoid that madness in Europe.

Ian

Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad" patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated patent.

Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?

I realise that - the implication was that this should be _impossed_ on the Patent Office.

If American courts allow people that are stupic enough to burn themselves with hot coffee to sue the vendor, then I can's see why an inventor or an average programmer shouldn't sue the Patent Office for issuing a dumb patent.

That stupid woman should have been banned from visiting all establishments serving hot food for her own protection, btw.

of

have?

If you knew the details of the case, you wouldn't have used this example to make your point.

Jon

OK, now that I've done a search, I withdraw the statement about the woman.

Right on ! The patent system is definately broken. It's good for the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away and stop hounding us. (which I've done before)

BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ? I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure about prior art and published papers etc...

boB

A recent article in New Scientist describes how a patent has just been awarded for a ³Circular locomotion assisting device² (or similar title, I do not have the article to hand) - in other words, a wheel.

...

My experience is that they do. Presumably they have search engines that do it for them. Usually my patent applications come back with prior art cited from a couple of other patents. They are even smart enough to cite patents from the same general field. Rarely do the cited patents actually contin any relevant prior art but that is another matter.

ian

In article , Joe Butler writes

Why? That case is an urban myth. Can you put the reality in a nutshell here to save the rest of us having to search for it?