[Random-bits] Alexander Wolfe: Intel's patents on IA-64 instruction set

[James Love]

http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20001027S0028
      
     Intel Moving to Block IA-64 Cloning

        
     FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2000 
Alexander Wolfe, EE Times


    NEW YORK -- A flurry of more than 20 new patents suggests Intel
Corp. is expanding its time-tested legal strategy to prevent cloning of
its new, flagship IA-64 architecture.

Some experts wonder whether Intel, Santa Clara, Calif., is taking a new
tack in corralling its rights to IA-64.  That is, rather than submit
garden-variety claims to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
Intel is trying to patent the functions carried out by specific
instructions. In doing so, the company appears to be, in effect, trying
to patent the IA-64 instruction set itself.

   [snip]

    "It looks very much like a strategy to keep people out of this space
by locking up these patents," said Ron Abramson, a partner at the law
firm of Hughes, Hubbard and Reed, New York.

     [snip]

"What's happened is things are becoming more liberalized in the patent
area," said Leonard Rubin, an intellectual-property (IP) lawyer at
Gordon, Glickson (Chicago). "Patents on business methods are being
granted where they never would have been before." 

Rubin pointed as one example to a patent Amazon.com received on its
one-click shopping method, and noted that, once awarded the patent,
Amazon sued competitor Barnes & Noble. 

Whereas physical hardware dominated applications in the old days, today,
said Rubin, "some companies are seeking patents they never would have
before." 

Rubin said that this change was likely due to a philosophical loosening
up within the USPTO. However, he also noted that many IP attorneys were
not happy with the trend. 

    [snip]

Intel today seems uncertain as to whether its patent strategy is an
evolutionary or a revolutionary development. 

"We and HP are much better at the patent process than 20 years ago -
everybody is," said an Intel spokesman. 

   [snip]

Looking at that same patent from a legal perspective, attorney Abramson
said: "This looks like a patent on something an instruction does. If
nobody ever did an instruction like that before, why not patent it?" 

Indeed, patents often contain some claims that seem obvious to the
practicing engineer. For example, dissecting the language of the
abstract of patent No. 6,119,218, Abramson noted that it discusses
executing a prefetch instruction, a function that's widely performed, so
it's not the crux of the matter. 

     Back-door patent?

However, the patent appears to hinge on the discussion about handling an
exception during a prefetch. If that is new, and cannot be discerned
from prior art, then the patent should be rock-solid. 

Asked if patenting the functionality of an instruction set was a
back-door way to patent the instruction set itself, Abramson answered:
"Well, it is tantamount to trying to patent an instruction set, to the
extent that the instruction set has new instructions. If the instruction
set has 'add with carry,' you can't patent that." 


-- 
James Love  mailto:love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176