Microchip looses the plot ?

   This in the news:

"Microchip sues Zilog over 8-pin microcontrollers"

and it's not April 1st ?

  Microchip used to be an engineering focused company, who took
a small Micrcontroller core, and used it very well.

  Now, it seems Zilog must be taking a chunk of their pie, and
they cannot compete on technical merit alone ?

  So, let's glance at what innovation they claim to have ?

6,696,316  Filed:  November 18, 2002
  Integrated circuit (IC) package with a microcontroller having an n-bit 
bus and up to n-pins coupled to the microcontroller
"By using pins with multiple functions, the instant invention permits an 
n-bit architecture microcontroller to use less than or equal to n pins."

  6,483,183 Granted November 19, 2002
  Integrated circuit (IC) package with a microcontroller having an n-bit 
bus and up to n-pins coupled to the microcontroller
"By using pins with multiple functions, the instant invention permits an 
n-bit architecture microcontroller to use less than or equal to n pins."

5,847,450  Granted December 8, 1998
  Microcontroller having an n-bit data bus width with less than n I/O pins
"2. Description of the Related Art

"Microcontrollers are widely known and used in many different 
applications. A typical architecture used in microcontrollers today is 
the 8-bit architecture (i.e. the data bus width of the microcontroller 
is 8 bits wide)."

" One problem with this and other sizes of microcontrollers is that to 
support an n-bit architecture, greater than n pins are required to be 
connected to the microcontroller."

  ROTFL, What nonsense!. Microcontrollers are typified by having ON CHIP 
  memory, and have _never_ had any bus-related pin-connection limit!

  Why should the BUS width have ANY relation to the pin count in a
Microcontroller ? - that's as sensible as claiming invention for a car 
that has fewer (or more?) wheels than cylinders ?!

  Even the Intel 4004 used multi function pins, so prior art there goes 
back a very long way indeed.

  Large volumes of ROM based microcontrollers will have been shipped 
over the years, quite happily operating with less connected pins than 
the bus width.

  The ancient 8-bit 8048 used 4 pins with the 8243 IO expander...

  Prediction:  This silliness will make Microhip a laughing stock in the 
engineering area, and probably not make their stock holders too happy 
either.

  They are going to have to sue Atmel, Fairchild, Philips ( and others ) 
as well..... this will be amusing to follow. [What _was_ Steve thinking?]

-jg

Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes:

>   This in the news:
>
> "Microchip sues Zilog over 8-pin microcontrollers"

Jim:

You've referred to and quoted the patents Microchip are suing over.

You've been in this business long enough to know that the Abstract and
the Body of the Patent are *not* the Claims of the patent.

Yet you're pulling sentences from the Abstract and Body to make your
argument.

I don't know the validity of the suit.

I *do* know that it will be fought on the *CLAIMS* of the patent.

If you want us to take the argument you're proposing seriously, how
about you repost it with Claim 1 substituted for your current quote from
the patent?

At least then you would have given us *enough* *information* to consider
the story...

cheers, Rich. [Yes, I use PICs. Hell, I use Cypress stuff, VIA stuff, ...]

-- 
rich walker         |  Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk
technical director     251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?           London  N1 1LX       | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml

Rich Walker wrote:

> Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes:
>  
>>  This in the news:
>>
>>"Microchip sues Zilog over 8-pin microcontrollers"
> 
> 
> Jim:
> 
> You've referred to and quoted the patents Microchip are suing over.
> 
> You've been in this business long enough to know that the Abstract and
> the Body of the Patent are *not* the Claims of the patent.
> 
> Yet you're pulling sentences from the Abstract and Body to make your
> argument.
> 
> I don't know the validity of the suit.
> 
> I *do* know that it will be fought on the *CLAIMS* of the patent.
> 
> If you want us to take the argument you're proposing seriously, how
> about you repost it with Claim 1 substituted for your current quote from
> the patent?
> 
> At least then you would have given us *enough* *information* to consider
> the story...

  This stuff is public domain, and I gave the Patent numbers, so it is 
real easy to look this up, at uspto.....

but under claims, 1, we have

"What is claimed is:
1. An Integrated Circuit (IC) package comprising, in combination:
an IC chip with a microcontroller having a data bus;

a first pin electrically coupled to said microcontroller wherein said 
first pin functions as a power supply pin;

a second pin electrically coupled to said microcontroller wherein said 
second pin functions as a grounding pin; and

a plurality of third pins electrically coupled to said microcontroller 
wherein said plurality of third pins are function pins, at least one of 
said plurality of third pins being a multiple function pin, a total 
number of said first pin, said second pin, and said plurality of third 
pins is at least three and one of less than or equal to a bus width of 
said data bus. "

  Read the whole patent(s), and ponder just how much prior art there
is, and how "those skilled in the art" would consider this
a complete no-brainer.

  The legal teams will do well, and Zilog will get a lot of free 
publicity, but this so clearly lacks merit that it can only make
Microchip's senior management look plain silly/stupid.

  I will follow this with keen interest.

-jg

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message
news:42fdbbb0$1@clear.net.nz...
> Rich Walker wrote:
>
> > Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes:
> >
> >>  This in the news:



>
>   Read the whole patent(s), and ponder just how much prior art there
> is, and how "those skilled in the art" would consider this
> a complete no-brainer.
>
>   The legal teams will do well, and Zilog will get a lot of free
> publicity, but this so clearly lacks merit that it can only make
> Microchip's senior management look plain silly/stupid.
>


Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?

Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
patents should be removed from their position?

Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
If not, it should be.

Joe Butler wrote:

>>
> 
> 
> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
> 
> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
> patents should be removed from their position?
> 
> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
> If not, it should be.

It does not make Zilog et al look to bright. Any semi manufacturer worth his
salt will have a watch on patent applications by their competitors. Before
the patent is granted there is an opportunity for them to object to the
patent - in this case on the grounds of prior art. I wonder why they didn't
because it is hard to see how it would have been granted if they had
objected.

Ian

Joe Butler wrote:
[...]
> 
> 
> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
> 
> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
> patents should be removed from their position?
> 

You would be doing him a favor.

What would be the upside? The patent office is already a sucky place to work,
probably the engineering employer of last resort.

> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
> If not, it should be.
> 
> 

Sigh.
Now, if only obvious BS patents could be revoked... Unfortunately such
stupidity seem be held high and proud instead. The patent system (and the
driving lawyer culture) is on a sure path to the ridiculous.

DJ
--

I thought that the patent clerk was supposed to do a search for prior art.
If they don't carry out a good search, they are doing a disservice to all
granted patentee's that have already paid out money to the Patent Office.


"Ian Bell" <ruffrecords@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddkt02$pnu$1@slavica.ukpost.com...
> Joe Butler wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
> >
> > Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
> > out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
> > patents should be removed from their position?
> >
> > Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing
of
> > dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can
have?
> > If not, it should be.
>
> It does not make Zilog et al look to bright. Any semi manufacturer worth
his
> salt will have a watch on patent applications by their competitors. Before
> the patent is granted there is an opportunity for them to object to the
> patent - in this case on the grounds of prior art. I wonder why they
didn't
> because it is hard to see how it would have been granted if they had
> objected.
>
> Ian

Joe Butler wrote:

> I thought that the patent clerk was supposed to do a search for prior art.
> If they don't carry out a good search, they are doing a disservice to all
> granted patentee's that have already paid out money to the Patent Office.
> 

They are supposed to. Several of my patents were challenged by the patent
office on the grounds of prior art, which they cite. You have to
demonstrate either a material difference in your invention or say why the
prior art does not apply.

I get the impression that applications for US patents are handled
differently depending on who the applicant is.

Ian

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:57:27 +0000, Ian Bell <ruffrecords@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Joe Butler wrote:
>
>> I thought that the patent clerk was supposed to do a search for prior art.
>> If they don't carry out a good search, they are doing a disservice to all
>> granted patentee's that have already paid out money to the Patent Office.
>> 
>
>They are supposed to. Several of my patents were challenged by the patent
>office on the grounds of prior art, which they cite. You have to
>demonstrate either a material difference in your invention or say why the
>prior art does not apply.
>
>I get the impression that applications for US patents are handled
>differently depending on who the applicant is.

...Or perhaps how the applicant _treats_ them.

I've been a passive observer of the _handling_ of patent clerks...
where a lot was done to _help_ them decide in favor.  (I suppose it
could be called, "perks for clerks.")  When you are paying your patent
attorneys 50k/month and more, there's a lot of cash-flow available.
May have been an unusual circumstance I saw, though.  Can't say.

Jon