According to the micro-network news, since the beginning of 2017, the century patent war between Qualcomm and Apple has not yet ended, and Intel has already been involved. Recently, Qualcomm claimed that Intel originally intended to provide the 2018 version of the iPhone using its latest RF components technology. Documentation and code, but Intel is now reneging.
As a result, Qualcomm, Calif.-based Qualcomm filed a motion at its location, forcing Intel to hand over the content that was previously agreed to provide: A detailed blueprint of Intel's cellular modem used in Apple's latest smartphones.
It is worth noting that the US Federal Court documents that on May 18 this year, Intel seems willing to hand over the design documents of the iPhone using its components in 2018, with limited technical information. Qualcomm also agreed to limit its documentation requirements. The scope of the solution allows both parties to agree to speed up the emergence.
However, Qualcomm once again claimed that Intel violated his promise and did not submit the relevant materials two months later.
In the documents submitted by Qualcomm, Intel explained that the request was too cumbersome, in part because some of Qualcomm's people wanted to provide testimony from people living abroad, but Qualcomm countered that the testimony would be available through video conferencing.
At the beginning of 2017, the Century Patent War between Qualcomm and Apple officially launched. At the end of last year, Qualcomm submitted an application to the US International Trade Commission (ITC), hoping to ban iPhones imported from the United States using Intel modems. The affected mobile phones include iPhone X, 8 /8 Plus, 7/7 Plus.
Qualcomm said that according to the agreement it reached with Intel when it sued Apple, Intel provided some documents, but did not cover the materials of Apple's 2018 mobile products, such as the sixth-generation iPad released in March.
Due to the increasingly fierce patent dispute between Qualcomm and Apple, the close cooperation between the two parties has also changed. In Qualcomm’s just-concluded third quarter financial report for the 2018 fiscal year, Qualcomm’s chief financial officer George Davis said The iPhone, which will be released this fall, will not use Qualcomm's modem, and the 2018 iPhone will only use Intel's baseband products.
Qualcomm has always been the sole supplier of iPhone baseband, but since 2016, Apple has introduced Intel baseband products in its iPhone7 and other models, but the proportion is not large, Intel's baseband chip can not meet the support for CDMA. Can only be used in some carrier networks.
Since then, with the deterioration of Apple's relationship with Qualcomm in 2017, the proportion of Intel's baseband products has begun to increase. Intel's latest XMM 7560 baseband chip has been able to support CDMA.
Although Qualcomm has no hope of ordering new mobile phone baseband chips in 2018, Qualcomm still has opportunities for orders after 2019. Qualcomm president Cristiano Amon said he believes Qualcomm will still become an Apple supplier.
2. Microsoft foldable mobile phone patent exposure: 270 degree rotation with notebook mode
Citing multiple media reports recently, limited by system and software bottlenecks Microsoft plans to postpone collapsible video codenamed 'Andromeda', but this does not mean that Microsoft gave up the way to continue to improve the project. Yesterday, foreign media Windows Found that Microsoft has obtained a patent for a dual-screen device with video calling.
The patent was filed on January 24, 2017 and was approved by the US Trademark and Patent Office last week. The patent name is 'Hinged device'. It is worth noting that the patent belongs to the same series as the patent issued earlier this year.
The patent shows a hinge device that folds two screens, which can be very compact in the closed state and can be accommodated in a regular pocket. After deployment, there will be a notebook form, one of which acts as a GUI and the other screen Provide a virtual keyboard. Also, when the device is completely tiled, the two screens automatically become the full screen. cnBeta
3. Dongjin Shimeiken wins the case with Cabot's Korean patent litigation
On July 20, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Court announced the case of South Korea’s Dongjin Shimeiken and Cabot, the case concerning the prosecution of patent infringement and other claims, and the cancellation of the invalidation of patent registration. The success of the United States and the United States won.
As early as September 2017, Dongjin Shimeiken had a successful case in Cabot's patent infringement lawsuit against the chemical mechanical grinding of tungsten for tungsten. In January 2017. In the trial of invalid patent registration proposed by Dongjin Shimeiken, there was also the experience of winning the case. The judgment of the intellectual property court was to jointly hear the above judgment and judge the result of the protest.
In addition, on June 13, 2018, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (equivalent to the Korean Intellectual Property Court) finally announced in Cabot’s two patent infringement lawsuits concerning the use of tungsten chemical mechanical polishing paste patents. Based on the above judgment, Dongjin Shimeiken has freed from the restrictions of related patents and is free to produce and sell chemical mechanical polishing for tungsten in Taiwan. Bruise.
In South Korea, Cabot can revise the judgment in Korea, but since Cabot's patent expires at the end of July 2018, it cannot prevent Dongjinshimeiken from producing and selling tungsten in Korea. Chemical mechanical grinding of the paste.
The chemical mechanical polishing slurry used for tungsten was almost monopolized by a Cabot company, so although some semiconductor manufacturers have tested the chemical mechanical polishing slurry for tungsten in the case of Dongjin Shimeiken, it is due to patent problems. None of them are suitable for mass production.
However, with the successful judgments in Korea and Taiwan, individual semiconductor manufacturers have chosen to use Dongjin Shimeiken's chemical mechanical polishing slurry for tungsten, and it is expected that more semiconductor manufacturers will choose Dongjin Shimei. Ken's chemical mechanical polishing slurry for tungsten and suitable for mass production.
The global market for chemical mechanical polishing of tungsten is about 250 billion won, and Cabot has basically monopolized this market.
But at present, in addition to South Korea, various semiconductor manufacturers around the world, including China and Taiwan, want to test and use Dongjin Shiken's chemical mechanical polishing slurry for tungsten.
In order to correspond to a state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturer with a capacity of less than 10 nm, Dongjin Shimeiken is preparing a variety of quality chemical mechanical polishing slurry for tungsten. It is also prepared for use in a target film that has been difficult to apply CMP technology before. New CMP technology.
Dongjin Shimeiken is the first company to enter the CMP market in Korea. Under the belief of the company's representative director (President Li Fuzhen, Vice President Li Junhe), he strives to ensure purely wholly-owned technology. And in difficult markets. Under the environment, Dongjin Shimeiken has made unremitting efforts to acquire technologies that can go hand-in-hand with multinational advanced companies such as Cabot and future CMP technologies that can be applied to cutting-edge manufacturers. Based on these technologies, Dongjin Shimeiken is on the scale of the year. The mega-Korean chemical mechanical grinding sludge market is becoming more and more competitive. China Electronics News
4. As long as the text is well written, patents generally can't run: Why are some companies keen on pseudo-innovation?
'No matter whether the development of the enterprise needs it or not, we must try our best to compare patents and patents. Whether industrialization is not important at all' 'project evaluation takes the form'... Half-monthly reporters interviewed in domestic high-tech enterprises, some private entrepreneurs and university scholars I expressed dissatisfaction with the pseudo-innovation phenomenon of some current enterprises.
Weak patents, fake demand: some companies are keen on pseudo-innovation
Recently, the national high-tech enterprise Changlin Group has been concerned about the idling of the project, and the scientific research fraud has attracted public attention. The semi-monthly reporter survey found that in recent years, some enterprises have been wearing high-tech and innovative cloaks, and the pseudo-innovation of deception has repeatedly been banned. .
To tell the truth, more than 95% of the patents of our company are a piece of paper, and it is impossible to industrialize. ' A national high-tech enterprise, the person in charge of a well-known pharmaceutical company said. Enterprises spend a lot of human and financial resources every year, please write a 'write' And the purchase of patents. But this is often a weak patent with a lack of technical gold content, the quality is very low.
Half-monthly reporters contacted a patent agency recommended by the company to consult on the basis of purchasing patents. The other party admitted that it would cost about 20,000 yuan to purchase an invention patent, but it is not guaranteed to be industrialized. The procedures are complete. The business personnel also revealed that 70% of the patents on the company's platform are not industrialized.
A person in charge of a new industrial cluster base also shared the same opinion. He found that some small and micro enterprises have only two or three full-time R&D staff, but they are big patents. The office is full of various certificates, and the product categories are extremely rich. It is because of the savvy 'innovation' approach, some put a technical invention in 10 different application scenarios, and separately declare, there are ten patents, some are money-buying, 'even the patent name content says no Clear, purely image engineering'.
The person in charge also reflected that some companies simply “take it” and directly paste other people's products into their own brands, which are dubbed “brand-name innovation” in the industry. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the fields of drones, robots, etc. very.
'Not only with weak patent camouflage technology, but also good at fraud, exaggerating market demand and order volume to build momentum.' Just after an expert review of a technology company roadshow, some Internet innovations are not rooted in core technology. Is keen to over-hypocritical fake demand to play capital games.
'Digital impulse' disrupts innovation order
Entrepreneurs and university scholars admitted that the “digital impulses” reflected in patent applications and innovation project declarations have intensified in recent years, resulting in a group of so-called core technologies and innovations that can only be seen and cannot be used. Industrialization, disrupting the innovation order and damaging the atmosphere of innovation.
'Lack of original innovation, major innovation, not willing to take the hard work of the cold bench, but want to make quick money, engage in fast-food innovation.' In the eyes of experts, behind this hurricane, enterprises want to base high innovation 'Digital achievements', taking the funds of the national innovation policy, on the one hand, using the social mentality that emphasizes innovation, packaging itself to attract more market investment and orders.
For example, the person in charge of the above-mentioned pharmaceutical enterprises said that, for example, when the national high-tech enterprise is recognized and reviewed, it is clearly required that the declared enterprise has a certain number of invention patents, utility model patents or software copyrights, etc. However, due to the review form, the paper application materials are mainly Lack of multi-party verification of physical objects, some innovative speculations have been confusing. 'Even the intermediary industry chain, with special communication channels to help pseudo-innovation through censorship.'
An entrepreneur who has just left a well-known university has been arguing. Recently, he is busy writing a patent for a builder's friend. The other party does not care about writing, that is, he needs the patent 'squatting' to declare the project. 'So I racked my brains and will The artificial intelligence of the research, the new material direction combined with the construction industry, smashed two in the office. ' He said that as long as the text is well written, patents generally can't run.
Eliminate false fires and severely punish
Pseudo-innovation not only squeezes a large number of policy subsidies, but also dampens the innovators who are really hard-working, and also affects the objective understanding of scientific and technological progress by decision-making departments, dragging on the pace of innovation in China, and reducing the level of innovation and quality of the whole society.
'What is terrible is that companies are driven by digital impulses, interests, and mutual comparisons. Some policy and review loopholes allow pseudo-innovation circles to work, and this situation must be reversed as soon as possible. ' Respondents are deeply worried.
Experts said that the first thing to do is to increase the amount of patent gold from the source and transform the quantitative advantage of innovation into a quality advantage. On the one hand, strengthen the quality guidance of patent evaluation, improve the patent statistics release system, and increase the assessment and supervision of local patent quality; In terms of the current local awards for patent applicants, it is recommended to do a good job of screening and avoiding the phenomenon of patent applications passing through.
Entrepreneurs believe that when supporting innovative projects, it is urgent to establish a scientific evaluation selection mechanism to avoid 'going through the scenes' to 'shoot the head', such as increasing the review of research and development expenses in project funds, and increasing the field acceptance of products.
For the fraudulent behavior of OEM innovation, respondents believe that they should introduce punishment measures, include the involved enterprises in the declaration of innovation policies, blacklists for review of high-tech enterprises, and restrict their access to innovative financial support.
5. Technology companies shouted 'AI open' slogan but patent applications and disputes are increasing
Technology companies are clamoring for the 'AI open' slogan, but there are more and more patent applications and disputes about AI and other technologies.
Last week, Google hosted the annual cloud computing conference in San Francisco, but CEO Sandal Pachai couldn't help but squander and swear on the promise of opening up his own artificial intelligence platform.
'We create an open platform and share our technology because it helps new ideas come up faster,' said Pichay, Google's source code for SyntaxNet from May 12, 2016, as Google TensorFlow open source machine learning Part of the database. 'We created TensorFlow so that anyone can use AI.'
This open nature has become the standard for large technology companies to compete fiercely to develop artificial intelligence technology. Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft have released their own software for machine learning as open source software like Google. All technology giants, including always comparing Confidential Apple encourages their AI researchers to post their latest ideas – helping companies recruit the smartest teachers and graduate students in the university.
At the same time, these artificial intelligence open supporters are also striving to claim ownership of AI technology and applications. Patent claims related to AI, especially machine learning, have accelerated dramatically in recent years. So far, technology companies have not yet These patents translate into litigation and legal threats to thwart competitors. However, if AI patents become corporate weapons, the current openness around AI research and ideas may end, and this may hinder research progress.
A study released this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the number of documents about machine learning in the United States has increased rapidly. This technology has driven the current artificial intelligence boom. 'We have seen that patent activities in artificial intelligence and machine learning are positive. A lot has emerged, and I see this index-level growth continues,” said Michael Webb, a researcher and research co-author at Stanford University.
According to the study, 145 US patent applications involving machine learning in 2010. In 2016, there were 594 incomplete statistics—the USPTO needed to publicly disclose these applications 18 months after registration. Weber and his Colleagues collected relevant records in February, which showed that the patent application for neural networks (a machine learning technology) climbed to 485 in 2016, a sharp increase from 94 in 2010.
Google itself is a model for this trend. According to a search of the USPTO database, in 2010, only one Google file mentioned machine learning or neural networks in its abstract or title. By 2016, Google And a total of 99 such documents were submitted by other Alphabet companies!
Since 2009, Microsoft has invested a lot of resources in developing AI patents. So far, more than 200 patents have occupied the first position. Google has been catching up since 2011.
Facebook applied for 55 patents related to machine learning or neural networks in 2016, compared to zero in 2010.
In the past 25 years, IBM has received more US patents than any other company. It claims to have won 1,400 AI-related patents in 2017, more than ever.
The number of patent applications related to AI is increasing, which is not surprising. In 2012, after major advances in voice and image recognition, neural networks suddenly became a hot topic for technology companies. However, the strategy of locking technology and the company The open emphasis in the open discussion of artificial intelligence strategies runs counter to one another.
The surge in patent applications is reminiscent of the fierce competition for intellectual property in the last major technological revolution surrounding smartphones. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Apple and Samsung have conducted at least 50 technologies and designs for smartphones. Litigation. Apple and Google have also fallen into 20 disputes.
Stanford University lecturer Richard Abramson, who was the general counsel of SRI, an independent research institution, said that more patents filed in specific areas would make litigation more likely to happen. 'If you Give everyone a gun, you can almost bet - the incidence of shooting will rise. '
Litigation of artificial intelligence may damage the openness of what technology giants say. Abramson said that 25 years ago, patent litigation was mainly about disputes between companies that used specific technologies in their products. To this day, many companies are known by the company as 'trolls' - these companies hold patents that they do not intend to use, just to seek compensation. 'Now the company is frightened by the patent giant's activities, and many companies have reserved Patent, so that there is a chance to fight back.'
At the moment, there is no indication that any leading artificial intelligence company is trying to leverage their AI patents. Google and DeepMind spokespersons say their companies have patents in defense, not intended to fight with others. Google The spokesperson also pointed out that the company only accounts for a small number of recent AI-related documents. Facebook spokesperson said that its documents should not be read to reveal its current or future plans. IBM's chief patent consultant Manny Schecter said that The company's patent department reflects its investment in basic research.
AlphaGo, developed by Deep Blue, has defeated the Human Champion in the Go game, an extension of the learning algorithm that helped DeepMind software master Atari games in the 1980s. Since DeepMind published an academic about DQN Since the beginning of the work, other researchers have explored and expanded their insights.
A Google patent is approaching expiration, a technology based on existing standards to help neural networks promote their untrained new data. A Facebook application covers a method for designing a memory neural network. This method enhances the traditional machine learning system for processing text with short-term memory.
Georgia Tech professor Mark Riedl, who is currently working on the Salesforce AI team at Palo Alto, says he is uncomfortable with patents and other basic machine learning technology patents. So far, the patents submitted have not caused problems for researchers. But their legal ownership of these relatively abstract ideas is not consistent with recent open developments that make machine learning so exciting. He said.
Not all recently submitted patents on AI ideas and technologies are approved. Since 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled that implementing an idea on a computer alone is not enough to make it patentable. Since then, software patents have become more The more difficult it is to get approval. Last year, the USPTO greatly expanded the number of examiners who specialize in reviewing AI patents, and it is expected to screen more applications.
But no matter what type of AI idea, it's unlikely that a huge change in patents will be available. 'Companies that file a large number of applications in this area are an important part of the economy,' said Pepper Holly's patent attorney Joe Holovachuk. This means they can pay the fees of lobbyists and lawyers to encourage legislators or courts to support the methods they like – which seems to make a wide range of patentable patents for various artificial intelligence technologies.
Andrei Iancu, director of the Patent and Trademark Office, said he has been considering artificial intelligence patents, which may be a big benefit for tech companies. In April, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he considered the nearest court. The decision to make the algorithm patentable becomes confusing. Iancu believes that the algorithms included in AI always seem to be approved. 'We must ensure that our policies, including intellectual property, are highly valued and motivate this innovation. He said. Prospective network