Altera sues Zilog - signs of desperation from Programmable Vendor ?

  A strange world when a Programmable Logic Vendor, sues
a Microcontroller company. Have they really been losing sales
to minnow Zilog, or do their lawyers need something to
justify their salaries ?
  Or, is this a retaliation to Zilog's suit back in
Jan 2007 ?
-jg

Do you know what the relevant patents are?

Jim Granville wrote:
>  A strange world when a Programmable Logic Vendor, sues
> a Microcontroller company. Have they really been losing sales
> to minnow Zilog, or do their lawyers need something to
> justify their salaries ?

Patents are insurance policies.

>  Or, is this a retaliation to Zilog's suit back in

That's how the game is played:
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6409006

   -- Mike Treseler

Mike,

That is one of Ross Freeman's originals (before he left Zilog, and
started Xilinx).

Austin

Jon Beniston wrote:
> Do you know what the relevant patents are?
> 

I found the press release by Altera on August 4th rather unusal as they 
had filed this suit back on May 23rd.  I'm not sure why they waited 10 
weeks to issue a press release.

The following is from the US District Court for the Eastern District of 
Texas through PACER.  If you want a patent lawsuit to go quickly you 
file in this "rocket docket" district.

Case: 2:08-cv-00218-TJW
    Altera Corporation v. Zilog, Inc.
    T. John Ward, presiding
    Date filed: 05/23/2008
    Date of last filing: 07/08/2008

No. Dates 	   Description
--  05/23/2008 Case Assigned/Reassigned
1   05/23/2008 Complaint
2   05/23/2008 Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120)
3   05/23/2008 Magistrate Consent Form Mailed
4   06/04/2008 Notice of Attorney Appearance
--  06/19/2008 Summons Issued
5   06/24/2008 Notice of Attorney Appearance
6   06/24/2008 Notice of Attorney Appearance
7   07/02/2008 Summons Returned Executed
8   07/07/2008 Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer
--  07/08/2008 Application Granted for Extension of Time to Answer

In Altera's Complaint they listed 3 patents.
   6,097,211 - "Configuration Memory Integrated Circuit"
   6,147,411 - "Overvoltage-Tolerant Interface For Integrated Circuits
   6,314,550 - "Cascaded Programming With Multi-Purpose Pins"

I have not reviewed any of these patents so I'm not sure what the actual 
patent claims are.

Ed McGettigan
--
Xilinx Inc.

> =A0 =A06,097,211 - "Configuration Memory Integrated Circuit"

After quickly scanning this - I'm struggling to see what the
"invention" is.

> 6,147,411 - "Overvoltage-Tolerant Interface For Integrated Circuits

5V tolerant I/O with a 3.3V supply. Hardly the first company to do
that. Maybe the actual circuit to implement it was novel.

> =A0 =A06,314,550 - "Cascaded Programming With Multi-Purpose Pins"

LOL! They've invented multifunction I/O pins.

> I have not reviewed any of these patents so I'm not sure what the actual
> patent claims are.

They all sound like the usual nonsense to me. Yet more evidence that
the patent system needs serious reform.

Jon

>> =A0 =A06,097,211 - "Configuration Memory Integrated Circuit"
>
>After quickly scanning this - I'm struggling to see what the
>"invention" is.
>
>> 6,147,411 - "Overvoltage-Tolerant Interface For Integrated Circuits
>
>5V tolerant I/O with a 3.3V supply. Hardly the first company to do
>that. Maybe the actual circuit to implement it was novel.
>
>> =A0 =A06,314,550 - "Cascaded Programming With Multi-Purpose Pins"
>
>LOL! They've invented multifunction I/O pins.
>
>> I have not reviewed any of these patents so I'm not sure what the
actual
>> patent claims are.
>
>They all sound like the usual nonsense to me. Yet more evidence that
>the patent system needs serious reform.
>
>Jon
>

Ther is a fairly well argued rant against patents (or at least the USA's
interpretation of patents) at 
http://www.embeddedtechjournal.com/articles_2008/20080729_patent.htm

I'm not sure that the idea of patents is completely broken, but it
certainly needs major reform so that innovation is reasonably protected and
rewarded. A copiers' free-for-all would also be bad, IMHO.

On Aug 6, 4:41=A0am, Jon Beniston <j...@beniston.com> wrote:
> > =A0 =A06,097,211 - "Configuration Memory Integrated Circuit"
>
> After quickly scanning this - I'm struggling to see what the
> "invention" is.
>

Perhaps evaluation of novelty requires more than a 'quick scan'.

> > 6,147,411 - "Overvoltage-Tolerant Interface For Integrated Circuits
>
> 5V tolerant I/O with a 3.3V supply. Hardly the first company to do
> that. Maybe the actual circuit to implement it was novel.
>

A novel circuit (if that's the case) even to implement something that
is not functionally new is patentable...you don't agree?

> > I have not reviewed any of these patents so I'm not sure what the actua=
l
> > patent claims are.
>

Usually people don't boast about their lack of knowledge due to their
own lack of effort to review the publicly available material...in a
public forum no less.

> They all sound like the usual nonsense to me. Yet more evidence that
> the patent system needs serious reform.
>

If it interests you, perhaps you research beyond the titles of the
patents.  Until you can rebut the specific claims in the patents
perhaps you should refrain from slamming the patent holders.

I'm presuming that you wouldn't appreciate a slam against you or your
work by someone who didn't take any time to look at the details so
perhaps you could extend that same courtesy to others.

Kevin

> A novel circuit (if that's the case) even to implement something that
> is not functionally new is patentable...you don't agree?

No. Being novel is not the only requirement.

> > > I have not reviewed any of these patents so I'm not sure what the actual
> > > patent claims are.
>
> Usually people don't boast about their lack of knowledge due to their
> own lack of effort to review the publicly available material...in a
> public forum no less.

You might want to check who you have quoted, especially given your
next comment.

> I'm presuming that you wouldn't appreciate a slam against you or your
> work by someone who didn't take any time to look at the details so
> perhaps you could extend that same courtesy to others.

I have read through the patents and stand by my comments.

Jon

> Ther is a fairly well argued rant against patents (or at least the USA's
> interpretation of patents) athttp://www.embeddedtechjournal.com/articles_2008/20080729_patent.htm
>
> I'm not sure that the idea of patents is completely broken, but it
> certainly needs major reform so that innovation is reasonably protected and
> rewarded. A copiers' free-for-all would also be bad, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -

It seems far too many companies seem to think that anything new they
do is patentable. In the UK there is a requirement that the invention
must also not be obvious to anyone with experience in the field. If
the same problem that is solved by many inventions in recent patents
were to be given to 10 other engineers, I'm fairly sure some of them
would come up with similar or better solutions. If that is the case,
then I don't think an invention should be patentable. If you solve
something that others have struggled with, then maybe you have a case.

Jon