Processor core license pirates

I'm working on a design where I need a GSM radio module.
I've found a low cost Chinese module that would work, and tried
some samples of it - all looks from the technical side.

Now my customers raises concerns about using Chinese GSM modules.
They say some module makers - especially in China apparently - use
unlicensed processor cores, and that the core maker (I'm guessing
it's ARM) would come after them if they are using the modules...

This sounds like FUD to me, and I can't find anything on the web
about it. Anyone know if this is real or not?

</A>

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:37:00 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Anders <nospam@spam.nope> instead replied:

>I'm working on a design where I need a GSM radio module.
>I've found a low cost Chinese module that would work, and tried
>some samples of it - all looks from the technical side.
>
>Now my customers raises concerns about using Chinese GSM modules.
>They say some module makers - especially in China apparently - use
>unlicensed processor cores, and that the core maker (I'm guessing
>it's ARM) would come after them if they are using the modules...
>
>This sounds like FUD to me, and I can't find anything on the web
>about it. Anyone know if this is real or not?

If they're wearing eye patches and saying, "Arrrrrrrr, matey!" a
lot, they're probably pirates.

Ok. Kidding aside, if you're using it to save development costs,
bravo to you. If you use it in production, that may be a problem.
Obviously, you can pass on any differences in production costs to
the end consumer be they business or private.
--
Ray

Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:37:00 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Anders <nospam@spam.nope> instead replied:
> 
>> I'm working on a design where I need a GSM radio module.
>> I've found a low cost Chinese module that would work, and tried
>> some samples of it - all looks from the technical side.
>>
>> Now my customers raises concerns about using Chinese GSM modules.
>> They say some module makers - especially in China apparently - use
>> unlicensed processor cores, and that the core maker (I'm guessing
>> it's ARM) would come after them if they are using the modules...
>>
>> This sounds like FUD to me, and I can't find anything on the web
>> about it. Anyone know if this is real or not?
> 
> If they're wearing eye patches and saying, "Arrrrrrrr, matey!" a
> lot, they're probably pirates.
> 
> Ok. Kidding aside, if you're using it to save development costs,
> bravo to you. If you use it in production, that may be a problem.
> Obviously, you can pass on any differences in production costs to
> the end consumer be they business or private.
> --
> Ray

Thanks Ray - not sure we talk about the same thing though ;)
To clarify;

  - Anyone heard of issues with GSM module makers pirating chip
    intellectual property?

  - If this is a real problem, would the IP owner go after the module
    maker (who I think is actually committing the crime), the integrator
    (who in good faith is using the module) or even the end customer
    (who has no idea what's inside the box)?

</A>

On Dec 14, 5:06 pm, Anders <nos...@spam.nope> wrote:

>   - If this is a real problem, would the IP owner go after the module
>     maker (who I think is actually committing the crime), the integrator
>     (who in good faith is using the module) or even the end customer
>     (who has no idea what's inside the box)?

All of the above would be named as codefendants, but they would only
go after really demonstrably enormous end customers.

Unless you have an agreement from the Chinese OEM specifically stating
that they shelter you against all IP litigation, you WILL be a co-
defendant and WILL suffer legal fees, at the least. Which you can then
seek to recover from your OEM via separate litigation... oh wait, the
OEM ceased to exist ten minutes after the first lawsuit started.

I just got a letter from one of our IP lawyers to do a patent
assignment in China; apparently they're filing one of my patents for
protection over there. I wonder why they even bother...

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:15:10 -0800 (PST), larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 14, 5:06 pm, Anders <nos...@spam.nope> wrote:
>
>>   - If this is a real problem, would the IP owner go after the module
>>     maker (who I think is actually committing the crime), the integrator
>>     (who in good faith is using the module) or even the end customer
>>     (who has no idea what's inside the box)?
>
>All of the above would be named as codefendants, but they would only
>go after really demonstrably enormous end customers.
>
>Unless you have an agreement from the Chinese OEM specifically stating
>that they shelter you against all IP litigation, you WILL be a co-
>defendant and WILL suffer legal fees, at the least. Which you can then
>seek to recover from your OEM via separate litigation... oh wait, the
>OEM ceased to exist ten minutes after the first lawsuit started.

More expeditiously, they can simply have your product seized at the
border. 

>I just got a letter from one of our IP lawyers to do a patent
>assignment in China; apparently they're filing one of my patents for
>protection over there. I wonder why they even bother...

It's likely to become useful during the life of the patent anyway. 
;-) 

Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

larwe wrote:
> On Dec 14, 5:06 pm, Anders <nos...@spam.nope> wrote:
> 
>>   - If this is a real problem, would the IP owner go after the module
>>     maker (who I think is actually committing the crime), the integrator
>>     (who in good faith is using the module) or even the end customer
>>     (who has no idea what's inside the box)?
> 
> All of the above would be named as codefendants, but they would only
> go after really demonstrably enormous end customers.
> 
> Unless you have an agreement from the Chinese OEM specifically stating
> that they shelter you against all IP litigation, you WILL be a co-
> defendant and WILL suffer legal fees, at the least. Which you can then
> seek to recover from your OEM via separate litigation... oh wait, the
> OEM ceased to exist ten minutes after the first lawsuit started.
> 
> I just got a letter from one of our IP lawyers to do a patent
> assignment in China; apparently they're filing one of my patents for
> protection over there. I wonder why they even bother...

So when I use *ANY* OEM product I'm expected to rip it apart and
investigate every piece of it to make sure everything is legal?
In many cases there is no way to find out what IP has been used -
especially when it comes to embedded software, so it seems far
fetched that I could be held accountable...?
...or is it common to set up a shelter agreement?
I've never heard of that being done.

But the main question here is if pirated chip cores is a real problem
and, in my case, specifically for GSM module makers?

</A>

>
>   - If this is a real problem, would the IP owner go after the module
>     maker (who I think is actually committing the crime), the integrator
>     (who in good faith is using the module) or even the end customer
>     (who has no idea what's inside the box)?
>
> </A>

They would go after whoever they think it will be easiest to get the
most money from.

The module maker is in a foreign country.  It's too much work to get
money from the end customer.

Lawyers are like that...

On Dec 14, 5:46 pm, Anders <nos...@spam.nope> wrote:

> So when I use *ANY* OEM product I'm expected to rip it apart and
> investigate every piece of it to make sure everything is legal?

[salute] God Bless America!

> ...or is it common to set up a shelter agreement?
> I've never heard of that being done.

At any large corporation you will have one or more people - either in
purchasing or in legal - whose sole responsibility, pretty much, is to
create supplier agreements specifying things like this.

Heck, I'm scarcely a multimillion dollar company, but when someone
asks me to write some code for them, my standard terms state
[paraphrased] that I am implementing to customer specification, I have
not done any IP ownership research, and it is the purchaser's sole
responsibility to determine what licenses, if any, are required, and
acquire them if necessary. Standard CYA stuff.

> But the main question here is if pirated chip cores is a real problem
> and, in my case, specifically for GSM module makers?

I didn't find anything specific but that doesn't mean it hasn't
happened. There are a lot of lawsuits about 3G technology though, hard
to filter out the noise.

Anders wrote:

> Thanks Ray - not sure we talk about the same thing though ;)
> To clarify;
>
>   - Anyone heard of issues with GSM module makers pirating chip
>     intellectual property?
>
>   - If this is a real problem, would the IP owner go after the module
>     maker (who I think is actually committing the crime), the integrator
>     (who in good faith is using the module) or even the end customer
>     (who has no idea what's inside the box)?
>

The first lawsuits in the LCD patent violation cases were served on
department stores in NewYork for patent infringements. Turns out
one of the silicon companies had not licensed the patent most product
manufactured with the silicon was unlicensed.

It worth asking the manufacturer the IP history of the module at the
very least you will have a paper trail of attempts to verify the legality
of the product. You might want to ask their competitors as well
about them.

Regards,

 --
 Walter Banks
 Byte Craft Limited
 Tel. (519) 888-6911
 Fax (519) 746 6751
 http://www.bytecraft.com
walter@bytecraft.com