By: Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org), April 7, 2022 5:45 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on April 6, 2022 10:53 pm wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on April 6, 2022 10:45 pm wrote:
> > aaron spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on April 6, 2022 5:31 pm wrote:
> > > phoson (me.delete@this.example.org) on April 6, 2022 8:03 am wrote:
> > > > https://twitter.com/Underfox3/status/1511697355145367564
> > > >
> > > > Not even subtle...
> > >
> > > the only thing not subtle is someone not understanding how patent applications work...
> > >
> > > the only thing that matters is the claims of the patent, everything else is just window dressing.
> > > Nor does a patent granted in 2022 have a priority date of 2022. Patents can take upwards of *decades*
> > > from filings to grant. Priority still goes to filing, time to enforce goes from grant.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't even matter if Intel invented this first. It was 100% plagiarism of the diagram from AMD's
> > presentation, and sections of text directly lifted from Ian Cutress' Anandtech article about it.
> >
> > One might be able to believe Intel invented the same concept
> > first, if not for including stolen IP in the patent itself.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how this turns out, but I'm betting on some
> > people getting fired and quite possibly sued by Intel to recover any bonuses,
> > stock, etc. they may have been granted as a reward for patent filings.
>
>
> Just saw a post on Anandtech were someone noted they referenced AMD and the Anandtech article in the patent,
> so I guess it isn't quite plagiarism. Not sure why you exactly duplicate someone else's diagram to use
> in your patent and copy someone else's text in your writeup though. Maybe the Intel patent amounts to "what
> AMD patented plus these minor changes" and they didn't want to take the time to create their own diagram
> (even if it would amount to the same thing, at least don't make it so obviously identical)
>
> Still a bad look, IMHO.
I have not read that patent, but any patent starts with a description of the state of the art.
In the description of the state of the art, it is normal to quote from various articles published about that domain, and from publications of the competitors, including from their prior patents.
After the description of the state of the art, it is explained what novel methods are the subject of the patent and then they are enumerated in the claims list.
Including in the description of the state of the art excerpts from an AMD presentation and from an Anandtech article, would be standard practice and neither immoral nor illegal, as long as the AMD presentation and the Anandtech article are mentioned in the patent in the list of sources.
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on April 6, 2022 10:45 pm wrote:
> > aaron spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on April 6, 2022 5:31 pm wrote:
> > > phoson (me.delete@this.example.org) on April 6, 2022 8:03 am wrote:
> > > > https://twitter.com/Underfox3/status/1511697355145367564
> > > >
> > > > Not even subtle...
> > >
> > > the only thing not subtle is someone not understanding how patent applications work...
> > >
> > > the only thing that matters is the claims of the patent, everything else is just window dressing.
> > > Nor does a patent granted in 2022 have a priority date of 2022. Patents can take upwards of *decades*
> > > from filings to grant. Priority still goes to filing, time to enforce goes from grant.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't even matter if Intel invented this first. It was 100% plagiarism of the diagram from AMD's
> > presentation, and sections of text directly lifted from Ian Cutress' Anandtech article about it.
> >
> > One might be able to believe Intel invented the same concept
> > first, if not for including stolen IP in the patent itself.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how this turns out, but I'm betting on some
> > people getting fired and quite possibly sued by Intel to recover any bonuses,
> > stock, etc. they may have been granted as a reward for patent filings.
>
>
> Just saw a post on Anandtech were someone noted they referenced AMD and the Anandtech article in the patent,
> so I guess it isn't quite plagiarism. Not sure why you exactly duplicate someone else's diagram to use
> in your patent and copy someone else's text in your writeup though. Maybe the Intel patent amounts to "what
> AMD patented plus these minor changes" and they didn't want to take the time to create their own diagram
> (even if it would amount to the same thing, at least don't make it so obviously identical)
>
> Still a bad look, IMHO.
I have not read that patent, but any patent starts with a description of the state of the art.
In the description of the state of the art, it is normal to quote from various articles published about that domain, and from publications of the competitors, including from their prior patents.
After the description of the state of the art, it is explained what novel methods are the subject of the patent and then they are enumerated in the claims list.
Including in the description of the state of the art excerpts from an AMD presentation and from an Anandtech article, would be standard practice and neither immoral nor illegal, as long as the AMD presentation and the Anandtech article are mentioned in the patent in the list of sources.
