   Someone patented the microprocessor
  Check out this article:Link to storyThe patent:Link to patentHere is what was patented (Pretty general huh?):A microprocessor integrated circuit including a processing unit disposed upon an integrated circuit substrate is disclosed herein. The processing unit is designed to operate in accordance with a predefined sequence of program instructions stored within an instruction register. A memory, capable of storing information provided by the processing unit and occupying a larger area of the integrated circuit substrate than the processing unit, is also provided within the microprocessor integrated circuit. The memory may be implemented using, for example dynamic or static random-access memory. A variable output frequency system clock, such as generated by a ring oscillator, is also disposed on the integrated circuit substrate.  
  Wow. A microprocessor that is made up of a processing unit, integrated memory (FOR STORING INFORMATION, NO LESS), registers and a clock to drive it.Amazing.I think I'll patent food, while I'm bored.I propose to patent "food" as described herein. Food shall consist of a carbon-based medium for transferring chemical energy in such a way that life forms are able to easily extract this stored energy and use it in their life functions. May or may not be covered in some sort of sauce.If anyone else uses food, I'll sue.   [edited by - TSwitch on February 11, 2004 11:16:19 AM];  This has been floating around on /. for a while.  The microprocessor bit is required, the new stuff is actually the variable speed clock.I''m taking an IP law class right now and it never ceases to amaze me at how fucked up the system is. ;  This is exactly what patents are supposed to cover.   If the article is right in that the problem arises in how the patent describes the use of the clock, then there probably is a case.  I can''t ge tht epatent link to work, and am running late for class so i can''t find it.  But everything I see seems to be pretty up and up.The patent can''t possibly cover all microprocessors, because of the way patents work.  They could patent a microprocessor design, but not all possible microprocessor designs. CM ;  The patented the variable clock, which is how you get GHz speeds.  So yes, a clock is pretty integral to a CPU, and this kind of clock in particular is needed for modern desktops.When I mean about the system being a mess is this.  Patents last for ~17 years + filing date.  That''s 17 years no matter if it''s a computer part, new biotech toy, or new kind of pavement.  These time frames all mean different things in different industries.  A key patent in the computer industry could hold up progress for decades while some new mech-eng thing isn''t all that much of a problem.  Computers move faster than other industries so a 17 year time frame is insane.  It''s a broken system. ;  The people whoever in charge of approving patents need to be shot in the head. Clearly they have no knowledge at all about computers. ;  This is another problem with patents. The owner sits on them, lets the entire industry become flooded with the technology, and then BAM! When they have finantial trouble - they sue the richest companies they can for the cash.So yes, patents don''t work.If they were protecting their govenment-granted-monopoly, they would have sued Intel and AMD (not the computer manufacturers who buy Intel and AMD products) some time around 2000 or maybe earlier (the patent was created in 1998).Instead, what they did - they sat on their patent until everyone used the technology, and sued the computer manufacturers (presumably because they have more money, collectivly) - so they could get out of thier finantial difficulty.Suppose they won this (rediculious) case. Do you think that they would have been able to earn that much income off their patent as the ammount they would probably recieve? I doubt it.Really, it''s just getting some other company to do your work. They didn''t have to spend any money on advertising, manufacture, etc, etc, yet - if they win - they will get a hefty slice of the profits.This wouldn''t be a problem if they''d act in the spirit of what patents are about - and protected their technology - rather than trying to make a grab for the profits of another company (because - evidently - their company was too incompetent to make their own profit). ;quote:Original post by Andrew Russell  This is another problem with patents. The owner sits on them, lets the entire industry become flooded with the technology, and then BAM! When they have finantial trouble - they sue the richest companies they can for the cash.So yes, patents don''t work.If they were protecting their govenment-granted-monopoly, they would have sued Intel and AMD (not the computer manufacturers who buy Intel and AMD products) some time around 2000 or maybe earlier (the patent was created in 1998).Instead, what they did - they sat on their patent until everyone used the technology, and sued the computer manufacturers (presumably because they have more money, collectivly) - so they could get out of thier finantial difficulty.Suppose they won this (rediculious) case. Do you think that they would have been able to earn that much income off their patent as the ammount they would probably recieve? I doubt it.Really, it''s just getting some other company to do your work. They didn''t have to spend any money on advertising, manufacture, etc, etc, yet - if they win - they will get a hefty slice of the profits.This wouldn''t be a problem if they''d act in the spirit of what patents are about - and protected their technology - rather than trying to make a grab for the profits of another company (because - evidently - their company was too incompetent to make their own profit).   Patents work just fine.  But there are ways to abuse the system, and those ways should probably be circumvented in some way.  But the core of the system should remain in tact.Including the dates they are valid.  If the technology is moving faster than the patents are expiring, then clearly things aren''t exactly stagnating because of an antiquated patent system.  I''ll change my tune if you can provide evidence of this stagnation.CM ;quote:Original post by Conner McCloud  Patents work just fine.  But there are ways to abuse the system, and those ways should probably be circumvented in some way.  But the core of the system should remain in tact.Including the dates they are valid.  If the technology is moving faster than the patents are expiring, then clearly things aren''t exactly stagnating because of an antiquated patent system.  I''ll change my tune if you can provide evidence of this stagnation.CM I probably should have said "Software/Computer patents don''t work"Computer-related patents should probably have a shorter time limit than most.Software-related should probably be completly removed.Overall the patent system isn''t particularly awful. The frequency with which it is misused in the IT feild is terrible.;quote:Original post by Andrew Russell  Software-related should probably be completly removed.I can agree with that.  It doesn''t sit well with me, but its the best solution I can come up with.CM 