Comments Locked

97 Comments

Back to Article

  • FreckledTrout - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    As someone that lives in Texas I know the case is valid if it starts in "Western District of Texas". /s
  • Samus - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    It's an Austin based motion, likely in an attempt to get a court with a better understanding of semiconductors.
  • CajunArson - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Actually the *Eastern* district of Texas in Tyler is known as the patent troll capital of the world.
    So the Western district is a little more unusual.
  • sing_electric - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Western includes Austin, which obviously has a long history in semiconductors, which might be a factor. In a lot of industries, the suit's filed where the lawyers are, and the lawyers are where the business has been. (It also avoids having the suit in California, where it'd likely be either in the back yard of Qualcomm or GloFo's HQs.)
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    You are partially correct, but to clarify, the lawsuit has to be filed in the jurisdiction the defendant is in or in a location that it has a physical presence.

    That being said, interesting that AMD wasn't named. GlobalFoundries made some bad business decisions (they scrapped 7nm among other things) and now they are attempting to sue others because those decisions are hurting them from a revenue standpoint. This will only hurt them in the end honestly, even if they win the case.
  • extide - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    AMD probably has cross parenting agreements for pretty much all of GF's patents so it's not surprising at all that AMD wasn't named.
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I suspect the only reason why AMD wasn't named is they are, for a bit longer, a GloFo customer, and GloFo leadership already sees the writing on the wall with regards to that contract coming to an end thanks to it cancelling 7nm. I've worked with key executives in the past who act in this way. It never works out the way it's planned. Once people know you are sue happy (and I have some experience in this area), they want nothing to do with you. TSMC will likely counter-sue at any rate.

    If GloFo were 'confident' in their patents, they'd go after Intel or Samsung. Why did they choose TSMC specifically? TSMC is stealing their business. If I were the CEO of any company that depends on these fabs, I wouldn't touch GloFo with a 10-foot pole right now.

    One question I had is why did AMD give these patents to them anyway? If i were AMD I would have created a licensing agreement. If AMD ever enters the fab business again, they will need to license those patents back. Even if that is unlikely, closing doors to the future isn't something that you should do. I'm sure they could have sold GloFo for just as much with a perpetual license with a contract dictating that terms don't change.
  • ilt24 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    @eek2121 ... "One question I had is why did AMD give these patents to them anyway?"

    Because they were a big part of what the boys from Abu Dhabi wanted in buying AMD's manufacturing assets. Note in total Globalfoundries has manufacturing patents acquired from AMD, Chartered and IBM.

    I'm curious what direction Globalfoundires really thinks this will go. TSMC has a boat load of patents and will surly find a bunch Globalfoundries is stepping on and counter sue.

    I worked for Digital's semiconductor division when they sued Intel...at about the same time they put the division up for sale. Intel then counter sued Digital and the two companies settled with Intel buying basically everything other than their Alpha processor. Maybe the owners of Globalfoundries are also looking for a way want out.
  • s.yu - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Why isn't HiSlicon on the list? So the patents were used to make Apple's, Qualcomm's, and MediaTek's, yet not HiSilicon's?
    Despite the minimal effect of a further ban to Huawei shipments to the US, Germany remains a major market.
  • quadibloc - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Maybe they're confident in their patents, but Intel and Samsung are using different technology? And when AMD let go of Global Foundries, it got cash for it from investors - they wouldn't have paid as much for a foundry that didn't own its own patent portfolio, if the sale would even have happened.
  • HStewart - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    I would think your are correct on this, Intel and Samsung likely use different technologies but it is interesting that others are start using 3d technology - but high tech companies do like switch employees back and forth so there is likely could be problem with technology leaks.
  • Zoolook13 - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    I'm sure they have a cross licensing deal with Samsung since their 14/12 nm process is an adapted Samsung process.
    Regarding the patents, it's 10 years since they were spun off from AMD, most of the AMD-patents are old, many about to or has expired, did you think they stopped developing and patenting after they were spun off ?
  • FullmetalTitan - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    They wouldn't want to rock the boat with Samsung, as they licensed their 14LPP process and the GloFlo 12LP process evolved from that, seeing as GloFlo plans to continue profiting from that technology in addition to specialty parts like FDSOI and RF processes.
    Also, Samsung builds their own chips, so they have never been a client of TSMC.
  • levizx - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Bad business decisions? Do you even have any ideas why GloFo scrapped 7nm? To put it simple, they don't have the money to build another fab, so in turn their 7nm will be solely reliant on existing fabs which must also produce 14/12nm as well. They won't ever get more than 10% of Samsung/TSMC's volume, so how do you propose they get their R&D money back while remaining competitive?
  • Kvaern1 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    What I find interersting is that all of AMD's and IBM's business combined (which Glofo had) apparently isn't enough to finance development of upto date process nodes anymore.
  • levizx - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Why do you find it interesting? IBM gave GloFo money to take their fabs which didn't have much volume in the first place. Expecting anything other than even combined they won't have a tiny fraction of what Samsung and TSMC's volume, therefore not able to support R&D is very much delusional.
  • quadibloc - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    No, it isn't. And pretty soon Samsung will drop out of the race too. It will be just TSMC and Intel, and maybe not both of them for very long. New process nodes are just getting ridiculously expensive. Moores' Law's days are numbered. But it's got a while to go yet.
  • Zoolook13 - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Samsungs memory business alone is bigger than TSMC, I doubt they are dropping out.
  • Threska - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Agreed. I think people forget that semiconductors isn't JUST microprocessors. Not everything needs the push towards 7 nm.
  • MandiEd - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link

    Why would they Samsung drop out when their memory division is generating considerably more sales than TSM and Samsung can consolidate the second place just sticking around?

    In fact, there will be more players in the future as the market demands at least one or two alternatives to TSM and SMIC will eventually catch up with others as they are backed by ambitious Chinese government.

    SK Hynix's revenue is comparable with TSM and they are also planning to have a go at Foundry Business. Hell, even Intel may want to try it again.

    The problem is that TSM is still a contract manufacturer and its customers can switch to other companies while Intel and Samsung have their products for their fabs.
  • quadibloc - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Well, AMD happens to be their biggest customer. If AMD can't get the TSMC processor chips for their Ryzen processors, it won't buy the Global Foundries chips that let them talk to the world. So they're blocking the TSMC sales that don't shoot themselves in the foot.
  • baka_toroi - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Isn't it very likely TSMC has another set of patents which GlobalFoundries is infringing? Sounds like a foolish move on their part.
  • Andy Chow - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Given that GloFo cancelled their 7nm a year ago, and decided it was time to "stop investing and start being profitable", my guess is that they are on the verge of collapsing and are desperate. AMD is still buying some chips from GloFo, until 2021. I seriously doubt that GloFo will still be around in a decade from now.
  • rrinker - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Also what I like to call "Innovation by litigation". Most famous pioneer I can think of in more recent years was Netscape.
  • Arsenica - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    As GF is far from being a "non-practicing entity" (a.k.a patent troll) TSMC is almost certain to sue them back.

    So unless this is some Apple-Qualcomm style negotiation-by-lawsuit (as in GF wanting to be bought by TSMC) GF is definitely going to end up worse than it is right now.
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    This sounds more like a move made out of desperation. AMD has started using TSMC for the majority of it's products. It only uses GlobalFoundries for the I/O dies of it's server processors and any other 14nm (like budget graphics cards) products it has. GlobalFoundries has very few large customers to keep it afloat, and when AMD's contract finally ends, they will be ditching GlobalFoundries in short order. GloFo should have worked on rolling out 7nm instead of pausing to catch a breath. You either compete or die in any market, especially in the silicon industry.
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    They didn't pause, they threw in the towel. There will never be a GLOFO 10nm, or 7nm, or etc process. They've given up on everything but specialized processes where ever smaller transistors isn't the primary measure of success. But since selling that sort of process to AMD was the vast majority of their business, they've been in mass selloff of assets mode ever since.

    Apparently no one wanted to pay enough for their patent portfolio (probably because after seeing their customers mutual destruction a few years back none of the other major fabs thought they'd be worth much in trying to get marginally better cross licensing terms, and having been badly burned the trolls were taking a pause) so they're YOLOing a lawsuit in desperation.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/13277/globalfoundri...
  • DefeatedGoat - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    GlobalFoundries can keep itself afloat with 22FDX(UTBB FDSOI) and 45RF(PDSOI)/45RFe(FDSOI). Which probably combined has more customers than 28nm/14nm/12nm at GloFo.
  • azfacea - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    not true. 14/12nm wafers are the bulk of their revenues. and their prices are collapsing. glofo is done. less than 25% of the workforce will be there in 5 years. but now it looks like they are planning to keep just a few dozen lawyers and transform it into a patent troll
  • DefeatedGoat - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I have not seen one GlobalFoundries slide stating that their 14nm/12nm wafers were the bulk of revenues. 80% of GloFo revenue is from processes greater than 14nm/12nm.

    This in fact circulated at GlobalFoundries: https://i.imgur.com/vmDYUCq.jpg
  • Eliadbu - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Did you know that Global foundries 14 nm is a licensed Samsung manufacturing processes? Also their 12nm is based on that process
    https://www.globalfoundries.com/news-events/press-...
  • DefeatedGoat - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Common Platform Node.
  • ilt24 - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    @eek2121 ... "It only uses GlobalFoundries for the I/O dies of it's server processors and any other 14nm (like budget graphics cards) products it has. "

    The new desktop Ryzen chips are also based on TSMC 7nm CPU chiplets and a GF 14nm I/O chiplet, so for this generation of desktop and server chips GF is still a major player.
  • ERobert - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    This remember me a Unix verdor (SCO) who sued IBM and other Linux vendors instead of innovating. We all know the end. Actually, I think that Samsung or TSMC have to buy GloFo, or it will dissapear in 3-4 years.
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Having given up on new mainstream processes GloFo's fab business has entered terminal decline. They're trying to keep something going with specialty processes; but when something like 90% of their output went to AMD and AMD is taking its core businesses to companies who're still making denser logic a largescale implosion is inevitable even if a small rump company is commercially viable.
  • levizx - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Nope, GloFo licensed their latest process from Samsung, with no 7nm plans. It's very unlikely GloFo+Samsung would still infringe TSMC's patents.
  • twotwotwo - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Seems awful for the semiconductor industry. Processes are so complex, and fabs' goals are so similar, that every large fab must be doing many, many things invented at other large fabs.

    Similar situation for software, especially given that the system allows patenting way too much, but there seems to be a no-first-use-of-our-weapons equilibrium among large tech companies there. I don't care *too* much if this means some large corporations pay each other settlements, but if it holds the industry back, ugh.
  • sing_electric - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    "In particular, the company claims that TSMC’s 7 nm, 10 nm, 12 nm, 16 nm, and 28 nm nodes use its intellectual property."

    Well, I guess we found out how GloFo's new overlords plan to monetize their investments in 7nm, even after cancelling it...

    I have no idea if this suit has any merit, but the fact that it's happening only *after* the company dropped out of the leading-edge process race makes me a little skeptical. The worst-case scenario is that GloFo was purchased to live on as a zombie company, making fewer and fewer chips each year while becoming ammunition for patent trolling.
  • Kevin G - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I guess the thing to watch is if these claims are amended to include 5 nm production once TSMC starts shipping those.

    The specialty process market did have some benefits for them as it looks like they are still the leading manufacturer for the Trusted Foundry program since IBM sold their fabs to them. This is also why I don't see them starting off with the plan to be a zombie company whose road map intentially lead to this. I suspect that there was genuine sincerity to scale past 12 nm on their road maps and simply couldn't keep pace (plan A) and they must have some issues with their current strategy of specialized processes (plan B) so that they have to go in this direction (plan C).
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Except for the problem that it doesn't make money. Or not a lot of it at any rate.
  • Eliadbu - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    They had a plan it was Called EUV the issue is EUV is very expensive for manufacturing (low volumes very high operation costs and other constraints). They took the bet way too early and when it was time to start volume production they understood that they took the wrong bet, all other leading manufacturers still use DUV multi patterning with probably TSMC is starting EUV this year but even then they will use in conjunction with DUV. TSMC would succeed since
    a) they are not a failing company like GF.
    b) they have much more resources in R&D with teams that have much more success in process development.
    c) they have much deeper pockets and market capitalization enabling them to take those big projects even tough the initial cost might not lead to any profits.
  • azfacea - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    complete scam. the story stinks from top to bottom. the claim start out with dog whistle politics "we are investing in US and EU" as if that has any relevance to whether TSMC has stolen anything.

    90% of these patents are just stating new problems faced in a new node and global foundries has always been 1 to 2 nodes behind TSMC, their "14nm" node is licensed from samsung because they couldnt do it even years behind. For every GloFo patent TSMC has 10 patents but they are hoping "texas west district" wont care thanks to their dog whistles.

    This is an insult to human intelligence and attack on technological progress with big consequences for the whole world. fucking sub humans at glofo were never planning to transition it to a "specialty manufacturer" they were liquidating to make it a patent troll
  • boeush - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Oh noes, what a disaster it would be if companies had to pay each other (cross-)license fees for use of patented inventions. What an "insult to human intelligence"....
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Except GloFo isn't doing this for cross patent licensing, they are doing this for money. You don't make money by cross-licensing patents. While other companies (such as Apple) have settled suits by cross-licensing in the past, the reality of it is that GlobalFoundries is not competitive at this point and is far behind the competition.
  • azfacea - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    cross license what u meathead? TSMC is not litigating GloFo and GloFo is liquidating itself.

    NT
  • Santoval - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Cross-licensing of patents by definition does not involve paying or exchanging fees, which is why it is the preferred option (unless of course company X has a patent pool of 15 patents and cross-licenses it with company Y, who has a patent pool of 10 patents. Assuming all patents have equal value then company X could get a fee for their 5 extra patents).
  • melgross - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Do you understand what’s going on here? GF likely had scads of engineers and lawyers scouring patents and announced technologies to find something they could sue over as they see their business sinking.

    They aren’t interested in cross licensing, because they are so behind every major maker that they have little to license. They are leaking customers. Once AMD completely weans themselves off GF they will have no large, reliable, customer left. And we all know what happens then.
  • limitedaccess - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    What's interesting about this is that TSMC filed suit and won previously against a former employee for leaking trade secrets that helped Samsung with their 14nm process. GF 14nm process is licensed from Samsung.

    Also related is the above former employee later jumped ship from Samsung to SMIC. SMIC in turn now also has a 14nm process.
  • eek2121 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    While your comment lacks sources, very interesting if true. However, one very big issue I have about suing former employees is where the line is drawn in the sand. I arguably know more as an engineer now than I did 3 years ago, and much of that knowledge was picked up working for various companies. I even worked at 2 similar, somewhat competing companies and did similar things. While obvious knowledge, such as sharing client info, etc. shouldn't be allowed, what about general or industry specific knowledge? Where do you draw the line? I'm worried that one day courts will take it too far and it will hurt engineers when it comes to employment opportunities.

    One of the reasons non-competes aren't enforceable in states like California is because a competitor can, and will bid on key employees. Companies themselves have tried to sign hush agreements to stop this from happening, and even that got shot down in courts. This means that a high level engineer at Intel can move to AMD or NVIDIA and vice versa. Sometimes patent suits like this spring up as a result.

    Coincidentally, this is one of the reasons that software patents should not be allowed. When you can start patenting algorithms (Keep in mind, I know of no major case regarding this, Google's case was a bit more specific) then some of the more common algorithms will end up getting patented, and then nobody can write code anymore.

    This brings me to my other point. Patents like the ones described above aren't 'inventions' by GloFo. GloFo didn't exist a couple decades ago. Ironically, it's doubtful they will exist a couple decades from now. Unless they are making a secret play on 7nm and are being blocked by patents from TSMC, this is purely a lawsuit to attempt to extract cash from a competitor, nothing more.
  • limitedaccess - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I didn't post initial sources because the stuff I mentioned, aside from what actually happened behind the scenes (obviously), since it was all publicly reported and searchable but I listed some below for posterity.

    Obviously we can't know how much of lack of shady stuff actually occurred. It's still an interesting sequence of events though -

    Samsung 14nm jump after hiring Liam Mong-Song (former TSMC employee) -
    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198925-did-chi...

    TSMC win suit against former employee -
    https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=132751...

    GF licenses Samsung 14nm -
    https://techreport.com/news/26336/globalfoundries-...

    Liang Mong-Song joins SMIC -
    https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=133246...

    SMIC announces 14nm risk production -
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/14744/smic-14nm-fin...
  • melgross - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    It’s a fine line. But if an engineer takes technology learned at an employer that is proprietary, it’s illegal, as it should be. Proving that is difficult. But if a company that’s been struggling with something suddenly has a process or product, after hiring said engineer away from a company with a successful process or product, suspicions are warranted.
  • mikato - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    "Coincidentally, this is one of the reasons that software patents should not be allowed. When you can start patenting algorithms [...] then some of the more common algorithms will end up getting patented"

    That wouldn't happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_m...
  • ksec - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    And there is a very high likely hood GF also infringe on TSMC's patents.

    It is also only a matter of time before AMD moves their I/O and APU to TSMC as well. Right now AMD is merely trying finish their WSA quota as soon as possible. And judging from the sales of Zen 2, this might be ending earlier than expected. And that is the only tactics they came up with.
  • levizx - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Earlier? You obviously don't understand how fixed-term works.
  • ksec - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Fixed Term? You obviously don't understand it is the Wafer Quantity that matters.
  • Teckk - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    So they've stopped development of 7nm but they know TSMC has infringed on that?
    And 28nm was out from so long, why did it take them so long to act on it?
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I see GF has subscribed to the "If you can't innovate, litigate" philosophy.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Minor correction, "...potential damages seeked by GlobalFoundries may..."

    Replace "seeked" with "sought" and it should sound a bit better.

    As for the actual lawsuit, eh whatever. Companies sue each other regularly. Those cases rarely have a meaningful impact on consumers.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I love seeing people post, based on pure speculation, "facts" aplenty.

    I think it's safe to say that not one person in the comments here has a clue about the merits and demerits of this case.

    Plus, if you think patents are bad... try copyright. You can thank Sonny Bono and the rest of Congress for that.
  • rrinker - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    And Disney. They'll do anything to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain no matter how long Walt is dead. Or frozen. It's absolutely disgusting.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Focusing heavily on the Mickey Mouse issue has the side-effect of making the problem seem less massive, though. Mickey Mouse is a symptom of a vast problem. It's vast, of course, because the extreme length of copyright terms is extreme for basically all of them.

    Many also don't know that the Supreme Court said Congress can take things that are in the public domain and put them back under copyright. So, theoretically, copyright has infinite duration.
  • rrinker - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Mickey Mouse is a hugely visible face of the broken system though. Everyone knows Mickey Mouse. Everyone might not know the smaller players who get crushed by the Disney's of the world who can afford a few politicians in their back pocket.
  • HStewart - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    You are likely right, and really funny about the comments that thinks it is scam.

    But this lawsuit is real, but it likely be settle out of court.

    https://www.globalfoundries.com/news-events/press-...
  • azfacea - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    what are you talking about man ? what merits ? lets hear the merits of a new religion some jackass invented before we judge Scientology? lets read the holy book before judging Scientology.

    This is a anti-technology anti-progress fucking scam lawsuit with dog whistle politics all over it. he wants to hear the merits.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    The obvious marketing in the statement doesn't negate any actual substance in the suit.

    Watch out for the Tone fallacy (aka concern trolling). Corporations are parasitic by definition. It's the way they're designed. So, objecting too strenuously to behavior from them that's asocial is not necessarily logical, unless one wants to jettison the corporation as a legal arrangement altogether. More simply, corporations trick people to make money. Using tricky political marketing in press releases is par for the course.
  • Phynaz - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    AMDs legacy continues.
  • sa666666 - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    How the hell does this have anything to do with AMD, you clueless tool?
  • Phynaz - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Where do you think GloFo came from you idiot
  • serpretetsky - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    The internet is a wonderful place for discourse!
  • sa666666 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    We all know where GloFo came from. I just question your obvious attempt to blame AMD **now** for the predicament that GloFo finds itself in **now**. Other than being a client (like several others), AMD has no connection to GloFo any longer. They sink or swim based on their own actions, not anything related to AMD.

    And you know this is exactly the case; you just couldn't pass up the chance to take a potshot at AMD. HStewart related to you??
  • Korguz - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    i think phynaz and hstewart... are twins.. or at the least, brothers.. with the former.. being the younger, immature of the two
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Unlike some others here, I am not sure that this is just empty posturing by GloFo. In some ways, it makes sense for them to sue TSMC and TSMC customers now that they are getting out of the SoC and general fabbing business. Prior to that move, GloFo would have ended up suing several of their own customers, which is quite awkward and bad for business. Now that they are exiting the general fab business, GloFo has much less to loose on that side, and a lot (of money) to gain. That being said, it would be a miracle if TSMC doesn't countersue. And, even though those lawsuits cost a lot, it's still peanuts compared to the costs for a single fab.
  • Vitor - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I'm against IP, i dont believe copying concepts and ideal violates any real property rights. But reducing patent duration from the current 20/25 years to 7/8 years would make me happy enough.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Copyright and patents are a great thing, probably absolutely necessary in a "capitalist" system, but durations have been extended, especially with copyright.

    Copyright went from being a great policy to being a damaging one with that change.

    I think the original copyright term was 14 years but it may have been less in the planning stages or something, possibly as few as 7. Now, it's absolutely insane.

    Research has found, as I recall, that less than 10 years is all that's needed for individuals to maximize their benefit with copyright in a manner that balances social benefit, perhaps as few as 5 or 6. I don't recall. That period is when the maximum profit goes to the individual responsible for creating it, while also not making the product unduly parasitic (an IP drain) on society.

    The thing that's missing when Congress extends things like copyright and patents (and when governments conspire to increase the draconianness of penalties to ordinary individuals) is the balance between what's good for the society and what's good for the individual creator(s). Congress and governments in general, unfortunately, don't work for ordinary individuals. They work for the wealthy and many of them are the wealthy themselves. All IP innovation rests on prior work. None of it springs from nothingness. When IP protection extensions are too long they impede further innovation. It's an added layer of inefficiency (graft). Excessive IP protection lengths are just one of the ways governments protect the privileged lifestyles of the existing wealthy, at the expense of meritocracy.
  • Santoval - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    "Research has found, as I recall, that less than 10 years is all that's needed for individuals to maximize their benefit with copyright in a manner that balances social benefit, perhaps as few as 5 or 6. I don't recall. That period is when the maximum profit goes to the individual responsible for creating it, while also not making the product unduly parasitic (an IP drain) on society."

    You must be joking right? With a 5 to 10 years copyright length how would the "estates" and "foundations" of Tolkien (who just pocketed hundreds of millions from Amazon), Anne Frank (the copyright of her "Diary" lapsed in 2016, after her foundation tried -and failed- to extend its copyright another ... 35 years), George Orwell (next year in the public domain - apparently) and many many others make monies?

    It's not just the original creator who needs to make money from his work. It's also his/her children, grandchildren, and if possible great-grandchildren and further. How are all these people going to live? They are the progeny of Hemingway, Tolkien, Sartre, Camus and Salinger, so you don't actually expect them to, er, work, are you?
  • GeoffreyA - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Great sentiment, sir. I can't even begin to tell you how much I sigh when I see Lord of the Rings (among others) still isn't in the public's hands.
  • Vitor - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Granting monopolies is not necessary at all, and that is all patents do. When people are free to use and improve on other people ideas, innovation can happen organically.

    And there is also the problem that real property rights should not have ad hoc time limits. If it does, then it is not real property rights based on logical arguments regarding scarcity. Nobody will stop having ideas and applying to products and services because the state wont grant temporal monopolies by threating other people real property (like money) for applying the idea without "permission".

    Also there is the whole issue of no idea/mechanism being truly original, there is always inspiration from something done before and plenty of colaboration thru life. There is nothign ethical about using the initiation of violence by the state against people applying your ideas in something else.

    Not necessary at all for free markets, but for corporativism it sure is quite necessary. We witness every yeah billions wasted on courts over redudant patents just to inhibit competition.
  • rrinker - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    That's a wonderful sentiment, but riddle me this. I can get that you might stretch and say there's no reason for a corporation to have exclusive access to something, after all, they are plenty "wealthy". But what about the individual? What if I, or maybe I and a friend, spend 10 years of our lives creating something new, what do we get if the instant we show it to the public, anyone can freely do what they want with out idea? Why should we create anything? Simply because being a creator makes us feel good? The problem is with how long it's been allowed to extend these protections. Which of course directly benefits a corporation because they tend to outlive any one individual.
    I DO release free hardware designs and software in my hobby. Mainly because I have no desire to start a business building what I am making for my own personal use - it then ceases to become a hobby if I do, and because there's nothing particularly unique or innovative with my designs. So I'm not doing this to earn a living. I have a day job for that. But if I were attempting to create something to make a living from, I'd want at least a chance to get started before the vultures swoop in.
  • Santoval - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    Most of these patents appear to be very generic or self-evident. There is simply no way Intel and Samsung do not employ the essential techniques these patents supposedly "protect", however they were not sued. I wonder why... Have they licensed these patents from GloFo? I *strongly* doubt that.
    One of the patents weirdly has two extra copies, one for the US and one for Germany. Two other patents have an extra US copy (I frankly don't get what's going on with the USPTO...) Did GloFo run out of patents to list?

    I also do not understand why they are suing chip designers, OEMs and even distributors. Why widen their legal net in such an absurd way? I get that times are tough for GloFo but attempts at revenue from litigation over revenue from innovation rarely work. Either innovate or shut down your shop, this kind of theatrics is pathetic..
  • Eliadbu - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    GF can't make the cut. They had fallen behind and have decided to close most of the operations and development, and focus on niche markets that doubtfully will make any significant profits now that rivals from Chinese and other countries get to the technology they manufacture on. So they take the easy route and try to extort money by "legal" ways. I also doubt how much of their current tech is theirs given the fact it is based on a manufacturing process that samsung licensed them. Also their are western company as much as the fuel you pump into your car that is refined from Arab oil.
  • patel21 - Monday, August 26, 2019 - link

    I would really love Apple buying out GoFlo and kickstarting their 7nm and further technologies.
  • melgross - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    Cases like this should just be thrown out. If TSMC was using their patents way back with 28nm, it’s impossible to believe that GF wasn't aware of it then. Considering that, why did they wait through 22nm, 18nm, 16nm, 14nm, 12nm, 10nm, and now, finally, 7nm?

    They should have to provide evidence that they didn’t know of this back then. Otherwise, it’s just a typical troll tactic. Sit back and wait until a company becomes reliant upon something before suing. That way, they have no choice but to make a huge payout, because they can’t back out of what they’re doing, which they could have in the beginning.

    And they’re saying that no other chip manufacturer (Intel, obviously) uses any of these patents? Nuts!
  • HStewart - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    I knew someone would blindly blame Intel here - Intel has nothing to do with GoFlo /TSMC Lawsuit.
  • Korguz - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    and i knew you would defend intel, when no defense was needed. but your intel blindness, prevents you from seeing the possibility, that intel could be using some of these patents as well.
  • mikato - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    As other comments have said, it's possible they didn't act previously because it would have affected their own customers negatively and they weighed the tradeoffs in favor of not acting. Now the equation is different. I have no idea regarding when a company needs to take this action if they know some infringement is taking place and whether or not waiting until the other company develops reliance or something would invalidate a claim.
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    It is a scam like every AMD have touched.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/cusn2t/...
  • sa666666 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    Why don't you, Phynaz and HStewart get a room? That is, unless you're not already just split personalities of the same obvious troll.
  • Bob Dean - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    It seems that these patents are regarding the manufacturing process...
  • AnakinG - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    I wonder how much reverse engineering GF had to do to make a case for this thing... It's so hard to prove "infringement" on process.
  • rocketbuddha - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    The problem is that the Power Point Foundry specialists which grew by chewing multiple Fab companies. The latest casualty being IBM micro electronics.

    With AMD moving to TSMC for the "best" process node as GF is stuck with 12nm for the near future and whatever "special" foundry work, atleast AMD is throwing them a bone by making the current XBOX and PS4 chips as well as IO dies for the Ryzen 3 and Rome processors. If Gonzolo and Scarlett are going to be fabbed at < 12nm then there goes future orders from MS and Sony.

    I think the kick to the b**ls was when IBM decided to go with Samsung for their future POWER processors rather than with GF to whom it sold its fabs in 2015 years back...It sold its 14nm FD-SOI and now has decided to work with Samsung on 7nm FinFET for future processors leaving GF with no big customers of their own but heavy infrastructure of Fabs..
    So they have to find ways to get the cash register running and why not suing ;-)
  • NICOXIS - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    This reminds me of Rambus.. if you can't compete, sue.
  • name99 - Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - link

    I think people are missing the larger picture here.
    The suit goes out of its way to talk about how wonderful GloFo is as a US/Euro company, so much investment, meanwhile the terrible Asians are taking over blah blah.

    This is, I suspect, not for the judge's consumption, it's for the consumption of US and Euro politicians. The end-game here is NOT "we get lots of money out of TSMC", it's "we get nationalized by Europe or the US".
    The story that matters is how there are only two big foundries left in "the West" and god knows how plausible it is that Intel can keep going as a leading edge technical concern. GloFo wants to talk National Security, Long Term, Millions of Jobs, all the rest.

    My current thinking is that the lawsuit is primarily about getting political attention,
    (a) to say "we mean business, we really are down to our last dollar here and we need help fast"
    (b) to concentrate everyone's minds on the fact that, yes, TSMC is in fact in a foreign country, and if they were, for example, pissed off at the US/Europe (eg because they were being sued...) they could in fact pull the plug.

    Will it work? ie GloFo gets to live another day, on government money. My guess is yes, in some form, for some period of time.
    Will it work WELL? ie GloFo remains competitive and widely used (as opposed to making very very expensive military-only only hardware). I'm rather less confident of that.
  • NICOXIS - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    what? GloFo is owned by Asians lol
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    GloFo is a business, and as such it can be owned by anyone. Right now it's nominally an "American" company (headquartered in Santa Clara, I would guess chartered as a Delaware corp), and owned by Abu Dhabi.

    BUT Abu Dhabi's primary goal is to get value from GloFo; and if that's best achieved by unloading it onto the US or European taxpayer...

    What matters is
    - where the fixed assets are (so mostly in Europe/US) and
    - where the employees are
    Can these be used to create a good POLITICAL story...
  • mikato - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    Hmm I see what you mean - similar relationship that agriculture has to national security, farm insurance and subsidies, etc.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now