That means nothing. A patent troll is simply successful in exploiting a deficient legal code. It doesn't grant them any validity, it merely confirms that they have learned to game the system.
I don't think anyone can maintain a straight face and say that the U.S. patent law system isn't fundamentally broken and still retain a patina of credibility. The smartphone suing and counter-suing should have proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Silverforce's invocation of Apple's ridiculous "rounded corner" patent-trolling was a case in point. It's a crude example but it goes to show that until we get significant legal reform, the unhinged patent trolls like Asetek will continue to stifle innovation and encourage the continuation of the theatre of the absurd until they will be forced to stop.
Defending this nonsense helps nobody but the greedy executives at a company which is clearly running out of ideas to grow their company and have chosen to become a parasite in its stead.
Some people are just salty, rushing in to defend AMD, and don't understand what a patent troll actually is (a company that only comes up with general ideas and never builds what they dream up) or how this has unfolded. If they'd put their own money and hard work into designing a product only to have it get reverse engineered and blatantly ripped-off, they would see things differently.
So is RAMBUS a patient troll?
i would say yes, in complete opposition to your position.
They are not a patent troll, Asetek actually make things to sell based on at least some of their granted patents. They've succeeded in several legal actions so the prior art must not be that compelling in terms of revoking Asetek's key patents.
I will say though that design patents are a somewhat different matter. No one saw the Apple v Samsung case coming and coming out the way it did and it's fundamentally changed people's thinking about design patents. This area will be hot in the next few years. I'd say there are good odds that they change the design patent damages rule back in line with utility patents.
I agree, design patents are a tricky area to debate about. All the patents with my name of them are utility patents, and are very specific in their application. Design patents seem to be like brand recognition, where the look of the product is the main selling point. Apple must have convinced the jury that their rounded corners were specific to their products as a selling feature. The sum of damages due to dilution of the design seem excessive to me though, and I'm glad they didn't prevent the sale of Samsung phones in the US (mainly because I have one ).
AMD is already seen by the public as a low-quality company. Now they'll also be seen as a copycat. It's going to hurt. Remember that this will also prevent them from releasing the Fury X2 (most likely), so there's a ton of R&D down the drain.
Neither lost. Swiftech never went to court, they yanked the cooler from the US. Coolit is still in battle with Asetek, filling their own patent claims.
You can still readily buy those designs, and neither are paying Asetek a royalty. Again, you were wrong. The sole reason isn't because the pump is placed on the mounting plate.
The only company found infringing was Coolermaster. The reason is more than obvious looking at the products they put out that were affected.
that right there is pretty crazy. the patent is basically an idea isn't it? not a specific design?Swiftech didn't battle Asetek in court, but they have been effectively found to violate Asetek's overly broad patent in court. One of the Cooler Master products listed in the injunction is the Glacier 240L, which is the H220 manufactured by Swiftech for CM with a new box and label.
Asetek has, at least in the eyes of that jury, patented the concept of integrating the cold plate and pump into one unit, regardless of how similar or dissimilar they are to Asetek's basic design.
that right there is pretty crazy. the patent is basically an idea isn't it? not a specific design?
ok, my million dollar question to you. where do you stand on this? and why do you think the case is legit or not? facts and/or opinions doesn't matter, give it to me. you seem to know quiet a bit about this.Patents cover inventions; a specific design is required. But you can word it more broadly to encompass similar but not exactly the same design (and nearly everyone does). But you are required to have a "best mode" which is why you see the term "preferred embodiment" e.g. a design. They turned the best mode requirement into a paper tiger though in 2012.
A number of specific requirements (35 USC 112, best mode, "useful" in 101 and others) require you to prove you have reduced the invention to practice. The patent covers the claimed elements and their equivalents. Its not so simple as "the idea" or "the design" rather it is somewhere in between, for mechanical patents at least. Gets far murkier when you delve into pharmaceutical and chemical compound patents or into software patents, where it can be much much closer to coverage of the entire idea as opposed to one implementation of it. It's rather more complicated than internet trolls would lead you to believe, which is why it costs many thousands of dollars to get a patent and a couple million to defend through complete litigation (e.g. to post-trial, but before appeal)
Although Asetek had originally included Cooler Master in the litigation, Asetek voluntarily and unconditionally dismissed all of its infringement claims against Cooler Master before trial. Additionally, the Cooler Master heat sink used with the Radeon Fury X was not accused in the litigation, was not found by the jury to infringe, and was not included in the judgment. The heat sink's design is also fundamentally different from the accused devices in the litigation.
so patent troll is trolling?
Because of Cooler Masters past history in developing the infringing products and its contractual relationship with CMI, the Court finds that Cooler Master is an appropriate subject of the injunction under Rule 65(d)(2).
4. Scope of the injunction
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d). An injunction cannot impose unnecessary restraints on lawful activity. Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (judicial restraint of lawful non-infringing activities must be avoided.).
Asetek is entitled to an injunction directed toward Defendants activities which cause domestic infringement as well as the activities of those persons or companies acting in concert with CMI. The Court will issue an injunction that enjoins CMI, as well as Cooler Master, from making, using, offering for sale or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States any of the accused products as well as from otherwise infringing or inducing others to infringe the claims of the one or more of United States Patents Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764.
Well, I'm confused. If they never included the cooler in the litigation why would they send a cease and desist order to AMD? What about the Gigabyte 980 ti. What's happening with that? Why has this turned into only an AMD issue in the Press?