Congrats Nelson. 
If you are free to talk about it, was the DRV134 the inspiration for purchasing the license?
Similar prior art does not invalidate a patent. Part of the "art" of drafting a patent application is differentiating the invention from similar prior art.
The source of inspiration is irrelevant when looking at patent violations. Even if TI's lawyers thought that the patent could be defeated, by purchasing a license they have said it is not worth the expense of fighting it.
Beware the evil business trying to make money? That's the whole point of business. Nelson still owns the patent, so TI can't destroy super symmetry. Sure, some will rush to buy SuSy chips, but if they don't sound good we'll hear about it here.
If you are free to talk about it, was the DRV134 the inspiration for purchasing the license?
darkfenriz said:
Similar prior art does not invalidate a patent. Part of the "art" of drafting a patent application is differentiating the invention from similar prior art.
The source of inspiration is irrelevant when looking at patent violations. Even if TI's lawyers thought that the patent could be defeated, by purchasing a license they have said it is not worth the expense of fighting it.
Beware the evil business trying to make money? That's the whole point of business. Nelson still owns the patent, so TI can't destroy super symmetry. Sure, some will rush to buy SuSy chips, but if they don't sound good we'll hear about it here.
Speculation - but perhaps it is just simple
People are speculating about TI's motives for obtaining this IP.
I think it is very simple - the Susy circuit is very easy to use to shift the level of the output. Most of the examples TI use are interfacing the op-amp to an ADC using a reference voltage suited to the ADC. Thus, it is very easy for TI to deliver an amp-ADC pair which is very functional. Now, if the claims of the patent hold true, they also get excellent noise, fully balanced inputs, simple circuit yet very high performance etc etc etc.
I think it is this simple.
Petter
People are speculating about TI's motives for obtaining this IP.
I think it is very simple - the Susy circuit is very easy to use to shift the level of the output. Most of the examples TI use are interfacing the op-amp to an ADC using a reference voltage suited to the ADC. Thus, it is very easy for TI to deliver an amp-ADC pair which is very functional. Now, if the claims of the patent hold true, they also get excellent noise, fully balanced inputs, simple circuit yet very high performance etc etc etc.
I think it is this simple.
Petter
Don't mean to flame anyone, however it is rather humorous to hear all the "experts" try to provide arguments disproving the basis for Nelson's patent.
I haven't seen to many large tech companies like TI license patents unless there is no way around them. With all of TI's resources at their disposal, it was still more cost effective or a necessity to license the patent from Nelson.
I've worked for tech companies here in Silicon Valley for 22 years, and nobody licenses patents that are not fully valid.
As great as Nelson is, he is probably no match for the litigation resources of a TI. Licensing usually includes risk and engineering alternatives analysis before moving forward. We can probably count on the fact that IT needed the license to move forward with their product plans.
Congratulations Nelson! This is a real statement as to the ingenuity and strength of your design.
I'm so very grateful you are willing to share your wisdom and IP with me a lowly hobbyist.
-David
I haven't seen to many large tech companies like TI license patents unless there is no way around them. With all of TI's resources at their disposal, it was still more cost effective or a necessity to license the patent from Nelson.
I've worked for tech companies here in Silicon Valley for 22 years, and nobody licenses patents that are not fully valid.
As great as Nelson is, he is probably no match for the litigation resources of a TI. Licensing usually includes risk and engineering alternatives analysis before moving forward. We can probably count on the fact that IT needed the license to move forward with their product plans.
Congratulations Nelson! This is a real statement as to the ingenuity and strength of your design.
I'm so very grateful you are willing to share your wisdom and IP with me a lowly hobbyist.
-David
for it.
dw8083 said:
the rest of what you said makes sense, but this is comical. it's always a simple calculation: if exposure from _not_ licensing the patent exceeds the cost to license the patent, then most companies will license the patent. part of the exposure comes from the cost of defending against litigation, legitimate or not, and part comes from the risk, and cost, of losing.
my favorite example of the brutality of that math is intel infringing a boat load of digital's patents, then buying the assets for peanuts from compaq, rendering their prior theft moot.
bb
Guys, hasn't the validity of this patent been done to death? Give it a rest, please. There are numerous other threads where this has been flogged to a fare-thee-well with various 'experts' weighing in with their opinions.
Whoop-de-doo...
Item--Nelson was granted a patent by the USPTO
Item--Nelson has commercial product based directly and indirectly on said patent
Item--Nelson has entered into an agreement to license said patent
Trying to play what-if scenarios and arguing about who came first with this or that or the other thing are all moot. The above items are all the facts that are necessary.
I would think that it would be more appropriate and useful to speculate on what circuits might result from this licensing than to go 'round in circles rehashing all the same points that have been raised in other threads.
Haven't you got better ways to spend your time and energy?
Go look up TI patents. Throw them in a bag with Nelson's patent. Shake vigorously. See what ideas might result.
Jeez, you'd think this had turned into a DIY law site. What happened to the audio aspect of things?
Grey
Whoop-de-doo...
Item--Nelson was granted a patent by the USPTO
Item--Nelson has commercial product based directly and indirectly on said patent
Item--Nelson has entered into an agreement to license said patent
Trying to play what-if scenarios and arguing about who came first with this or that or the other thing are all moot. The above items are all the facts that are necessary.
I would think that it would be more appropriate and useful to speculate on what circuits might result from this licensing than to go 'round in circles rehashing all the same points that have been raised in other threads.
Haven't you got better ways to spend your time and energy?
Go look up TI patents. Throw them in a bag with Nelson's patent. Shake vigorously. See what ideas might result.
Jeez, you'd think this had turned into a DIY law site. What happened to the audio aspect of things?
Grey
Congrats to Nelson!
We can speculate on the how and why, and will probably never know all the details.
Fact is Nelson had (still has, that's the beauty of it, well negotiated Nelson!), something that mighty TI was willing to pay for. That's the bottom line, and Nelson deserves our congratulations for that.
Mr Pass not only is a great engineer but also a very smart business and marketing person.
Cheers!
Jan Didden
We can speculate on the how and why, and will probably never know all the details.
Fact is Nelson had (still has, that's the beauty of it, well negotiated Nelson!), something that mighty TI was willing to pay for. That's the bottom line, and Nelson deserves our congratulations for that.
Mr Pass not only is a great engineer but also a very smart business and marketing person.
Cheers!
Jan Didden
b-square said:
Hi b-squared,
I believe I stated in the next sentance that a legal challenge is also factored into the analysis. The fact that Intel had competing patent interests with DEC is par for the course.
Differences of opinion exist as to what is fully valid, and a patent is not fully validated until it is challenged or upheld by licensing.
Intel, HP, SUN, etc are cross-licensing patents all the time with other companies to protect their interestes and extend their usable protfolio.
Look at what recently happened with RIM and the Blackberry email technology. It would have benn cheaper to address the issue up front.
Just my $.02 worth.
-David
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.