While both Intel and Microsoft had their heyday of anticompetitive behavior, they seem to have, relatively, been good corporate citizens this decade. The 2010s have had Google, Qualcomm, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook all under investigation, but for the most part Intel and MS seem to be operating under better circumstances.
It doesn't excuse their past behavior of course, but I find it a stretch to say they're the most unethical business practitioner today; hell, even in the semiconductor industry, Qualcomm's global antitrust practice covers a much larger scope than what Intel had back in the mid 2000s.
Well Intel are under a whole lot of non-technical investigations/lawsuits -- for favoring Indians over Koreans, for treating old people badly, for not handling retirement funds properly, blah blah. Make of those what you will
On the tech side they settled with WARF regarding load-store aliasing prediction (unlike Apple who took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and won [in the sense that Apple won on Appeal, and the SC saw no reason to take the case on behalf of WARF]); and they're facing a whole lot of Meltdown legal messiness.
But recent (say past 8 yrs or so) lawsuits *initiated* by Intel, I can't think of any. In 2010 they were scolded by the Justice Dept, followed by a suit in 2013, for engaging in non-compete collusions with other tech companies, which is kinda sorta adjacent to the issue here.
@Drumsticks you do know that contra-funding/contra-revenue discounts, that illegal practice for which Intel were fined €1Bn in 2014 (a piddling amount in comparison to the benefit they gained, and the harm they caused the market/less-well heeled competitors), is sadly alive and well again at Intel in 2019 (and has been for years)? Some companies never learn... or believe they're above the law.
Is there any (even rumored) proof of that? It would be news to me. The 2014 fine was for conduct done in the mid 2000s, not for conduct in the mid 2010s, as best I know. I'm not excusing their previous conduct, but it'd be news to me if they're up to the same against Zen.
Article from 2018: "Guess what is making a comeback at Intel, yup, contra-revenue funding. SemiAccurate has learned that it never really went away, just changed targets, and the numbers appear to be pretty huge."
Or Google "intel contra-revenue" for various articles on the subject, all covering activities after the period covered by the fine.
Ignoring the irony of this suit being brought by Intel, they are correct that patent trolls are inherently anti-competitive. They are essentially challenging the entire patent system however and are unlikely to win, even if the country would be better off if they did.
Perhaps if some of the other big name victims of patent trolling would join in, the morons in Washington just MIGHT get the hint that the system as it operates today is almost completely useless and in serious need of revamping. And once they fix the patent system, they can get to work on the copyright system.
Getting into the whole does X infringe is incredibly complicated. Realistically most complex designs of pretty much anything in most industries probably infringe (unknowingly) on a competitor's IP.
Clearing designs when there are 1,000s of patents out there, many badly written with woolly claims and often covering prior art, is almost impossible. Most real companies, i.e. Intel, cross license with other companies and compete at the product and not feature level.
IP trolls make nothing and therefore have no need to and in this case seem to be trying to extract unreasonable licensing fees.
Patents, although currently a horrible system with a great need to update, should not be used as a means of rent seeking by people who generally have no engineers but a lot of lawyers. Typically they will shake down smaller firms that are not very Patent savvy, as taking a case to court can easily lead to spending 7 figures and destroying the company. Using patents in this manner is equivalent to blackmail.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
21 Comments
Back to Article
ae00711 - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
oh the f88king ironyazfacea - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
finally intel doing something positive, going after a patent troll.Xajel - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Ooooh, Intel is accusing another company of anticompetitive behaviour!What a time to live in..
Holliday75 - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Its like Manson calling Dahmer a sicko murderer. While its a bit ironic coming from Manson it does not change the truth of the situation.azfacea - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
for your information intel actualy makes something, not so for Fortress Investment GroupPeachNCream - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
True statement. Intel has made a lot of somethings at 14nm.FreckledTrout - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
+FreckledTrout - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Who better than Intel to know?CityBlue - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Intel, possibly the *most* unethical business practitioner in the tech sector, accusing another company of "unethical behavior"? Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.Drumsticks - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
While both Intel and Microsoft had their heyday of anticompetitive behavior, they seem to have, relatively, been good corporate citizens this decade. The 2010s have had Google, Qualcomm, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook all under investigation, but for the most part Intel and MS seem to be operating under better circumstances.It doesn't excuse their past behavior of course, but I find it a stretch to say they're the most unethical business practitioner today; hell, even in the semiconductor industry, Qualcomm's global antitrust practice covers a much larger scope than what Intel had back in the mid 2000s.
name99 - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Well Intel are under a whole lot of non-technical investigations/lawsuits -- for favoring Indians over Koreans, for treating old people badly, for not handling retirement funds properly, blah blah.Make of those what you will
On the tech side they settled with WARF regarding load-store aliasing prediction (unlike Apple who took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and won [in the sense that Apple won on Appeal, and the SC saw no reason to take the case on behalf of WARF]); and they're facing a whole lot of Meltdown legal messiness.
But recent (say past 8 yrs or so) lawsuits *initiated* by Intel, I can't think of any.
In 2010 they were scolded by the Justice Dept, followed by a suit in 2013, for engaging in non-compete collusions with other tech companies, which is kinda sorta adjacent to the issue here.
CityBlue - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
@Drumsticks you do know that contra-funding/contra-revenue discounts, that illegal practice for which Intel were fined €1Bn in 2014 (a piddling amount in comparison to the benefit they gained, and the harm they caused the market/less-well heeled competitors), is sadly alive and well again at Intel in 2019 (and has been for years)? Some companies never learn... or believe they're above the law.Drumsticks - Friday, October 25, 2019 - link
Is there any (even rumored) proof of that? It would be news to me. The 2014 fine was for conduct done in the mid 2000s, not for conduct in the mid 2010s, as best I know. I'm not excusing their previous conduct, but it'd be news to me if they're up to the same against Zen.CityBlue - Friday, October 25, 2019 - link
Try this:https://semiaccurate.com/2018/05/08/contra-revenue...
Article from 2018: "Guess what is making a comeback at Intel, yup, contra-revenue funding. SemiAccurate has learned that it never really went away, just changed targets, and the numbers appear to be pretty huge."
Or Google "intel contra-revenue" for various articles on the subject, all covering activities after the period covered by the fine.
shabby - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
"Fortress and its PAEs seek to use that ill-gotten power to extract and extort exorbitant revenues unfairly and anticompetitively from Intel"Lol this looks mighty familiar huh, didn't intel have this ill-gotten power over amd before?
unrulycow - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Ignoring the irony of this suit being brought by Intel, they are correct that patent trolls are inherently anti-competitive. They are essentially challenging the entire patent system however and are unlikely to win, even if the country would be better off if they did.rrinker - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Perhaps if some of the other big name victims of patent trolling would join in, the morons in Washington just MIGHT get the hint that the system as it operates today is almost completely useless and in serious need of revamping.And once they fix the patent system, they can get to work on the copyright system.
And pigs might just fly some day.
drexnx - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
so they're not at all arguing about the infringement?RBFL - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Getting into the whole does X infringe is incredibly complicated. Realistically most complex designs of pretty much anything in most industries probably infringe (unknowingly) on a competitor's IP.Clearing designs when there are 1,000s of patents out there, many badly written with woolly claims and often covering prior art, is almost impossible. Most real companies, i.e. Intel, cross license with other companies and compete at the product and not feature level.
IP trolls make nothing and therefore have no need to and in this case seem to be trying to extract unreasonable licensing fees.
Patents, although currently a horrible system with a great need to update, should not be used as a means of rent seeking by people who generally have no engineers but a lot of lawyers. Typically they will shake down smaller firms that are not very Patent savvy, as taking a case to court can easily lead to spending 7 figures and destroying the company. Using patents in this manner is equivalent to blackmail.
willis936 - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
“ In the recent years IP aggregation with an aim to enforce patents and receive royalties has developed into a business in and of itself.”Is 50 years ago considered “recent”?
willis936 - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Closer to 30*My point that it has been profitable to hoover up patents for profit is not a very new strategy.