Seagate Sues STEC For Patent Infringement 51
Lucas123 writes "Yesterday Seagate filed suit against STEC, claiming several of its products, including solid state disks and some DRAM devices, infringe as many as four of its patents. Today STEC responded that it holds patents on the technology 10 years older than Seagate's. A Seagate win in the suit, or a settlement, could result in the equivalent of a tax on SSDs and potentially other flash memory products, increasing prices to end users at a time when demand for SSD storage is exploding."
Timing (Score:1)
Aw crap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Aw crap! (Score:5, Informative)
Seagate fears the market potential STEC has. The simplest path is to litigate STEC to death over patents or trademark.
It's happened to every small company I've worked for. Most of them closed up shop because the big fish buried them in Trademark and Patent litigation over and over again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And the sick thing is, I used to work for Seagate, back when the founder, Al Shugart (the guy who practically invented the disk drive when he worked for IBM) was in charge, and he was VERY vocal about his opposition to the "sue em" business model.
No wonder he was forced out.
Re: (Score:2)
Seagate probably looked at the market and just randomly picked one to go after. Or they looked for the one they thought was the weakest and would cave into demands for a licensing agreement.
The Seagate lawyers probably didn't do their due diligence when researching which company to go after first.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seagate scared (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
"Nothing personal, just a business decision." That line was used as several hundred employees were being scrapped, it is the credo of Seagate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Resorting to patent lawsuits is NOT a sign of a confident/competent tech company. There's a good chance this will cause a backlash if it fails, which in my opinion is what Seagate richly deserves. Litigation must not become a viable business strategy.
Re:Seagate scared DELAY EXPLAINED (Score:3, Interesting)
He just didn't know which possible patents he could throw against it at the time and didn't want to be questioned on that point. Now he believes he knows that answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I'd be surprised if Seagate was losing much business to SSDs yet. Samsung, on the other hand, appears to be wiping the floor with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a drop in the bucket at the moment. But let's face it, spinning magnetic platters are so 20th century -- they create a lot of heat, they're heavy, draw a significant amount of power, and are still slow compared to the monumental improvments in other computer components. Not to mention hard drives have moving parts and are the single most likely compone
I can see the humour in this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't know about SOTA, but SOA is already taken by Start of Authority in DNS land.
At least, that was the primary meaning of SOA (in my mind), until the damn dirty marketroids started spewing "Service Oriented Architecture" all over the place, whatever the hell that means.
Sorry, pet peeve. I'll shut up now.
I had a 20MB SSD from 1996 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly, protecting the innovator (Score:5, Funny)
Hang on. Seagate. Right.
Oh, this must be one of those very rare cases where patents don't act in the interests of society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent are there to help the patent holder, regardless of size. They make it easier for the little guy to get into or start a market.
If Seagate has a patent, then they should gt compensation.
This is the patent system working fine.
Yes, it needs changes, but it also does what it is supposed to pretty well.
This is why 'patent reform' make me nervous. What are the odds that if it is reformed it will be better? very low, in fact I think if momentum begins going in that directions, large corporati
Re: (Score:2)
Patent are there to help the patent holder, regardless of size. They make it easier for the little guy to get into or start a market.
Patents help the patent holder if and only if (a) they can afford to defend them in court, which costs upwards of $1m and (b) they do not themselves infringe on other patents.
Given these two conditions, patents most definitely do NOT make it easier for the little guy to get into or start a market. Oh, unless by "little guys" you include well-funded patent trolls, who definitely love the current patent system.
What they do, very effectively, is stop competition in markets. This is the patent system working
STEC's Official Response (Score:3, Informative)
STEC believes that Seagate's action is a desperate move to disrupt how aggressively customers are embracing STEC's Zeus-IOPS technology and changing the balance of power in enterprise storage.
QFT
Another One Bites The Dust (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The USPTO is broken. full. stop. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are found to be stifling innovation by using patents to block innovators... well, say good bye to ALL your patents in the next 7 years. At least any patents that look similar to the one in question. Say, all your hard drive patents.
Patents are meant to protect, not be used to bludgeon your competition into bankruptcy. If you misuse them... nach!, all your patents are belong to the public domain.
It's time that this stupid use of patents was brought to an end.
Sure, my suggestion has some issues, but every solution less than 100 pages long does. The idea is what I'm offering, not the fine details.
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, did you patent the idea?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because anybody can get money, market, and get something to the public in a year.
Does your ignorance know no bounds?
If someone violates your patent and can not bear the court case from doing so, then it isn't the patent holders fault, is it?
almost all the time, patents work as intended. Your plan fails under the harsh glare of practicality.
try again.
Re: (Score:2)
pretty good bet that you didn't invest much into it either. Patents are meant to
encourage disclosure of things that are useful and presumably difficult to come
up with.
It shouldn't be a cash cow for collecting tolls on the trivial (like Tivo).
If you are going to interfere with future innovation for the next 17 years
it should be something that people have been trying to unsuccessfully create
for the last few decades (like the revol
Re:The USPTO is broken. full. stop. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if you do not act fast, you can lose the patent to the public domain. Of course, if you truly have something that is innovative and non-obvious it will not readily be 'also invented' by someone else.
The patent system was created to deal with commerce and innovation of 500+ years ago. Do I need tell you about the contrast between then and now?
Technology based patents are useless in about 5 years; nearly worthless in 3. Anything longer than 7 years is gratuitous. Yes, I believe that there should be levels of patents issued. If your technology is truly innovative and paradigm shifting, ok, 21 years. It's not so if all you did was change the color (colour) or connector.
There no longer is a one size fits all schema. If you want a business process patent, I'm okay with that, but you only get 2 years from date of issue, after that it goes to public domain.
Oh, genetic patents... nach! not getting them. If you think your soybean seeds are better than nature has created, prove it by selling more without a patent. Absolutely no patents on anything that nature created: all you are doing is changing the color or connector. period. no. joking.
And to answer your point, if you are working on something and can show valid reason to have the patent longer, so it will be. If you have nothing, that is EXACTLY what you are leaving the courtroom with.
Re:The USPTO is broken. full. stop. (Score:4, Insightful)
So I wish Seagate good luck in defending their business. Because the next company they will have to target will be Samsung and this will not be a walk in the park.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally wrong. Cheap SSD flash drives put a bunch of flash chips behind one controller. They can do maybe 100 random writes per second. More expensive ones have multiple controllers that run in parallel and get 500 IOPS. STEC ZeusIOPS claims 17000 random write IOPS. They are innovative and scaring the hell out of the rotating disk manufacturers. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel come to STEC's aid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Patent Infrignment (Score:2, Funny)
Penalty for abuse of the courts urgently needed. (Score:2)
Seagate is Scum (Score:2)
If this is just a SATA connection, how does Seagate own it to start with? Other companies make SATA hard drives. And if they don't own it, how are you in trouble adhering to it?
I see that Intel is potentially dragged int
what could possibly be patentable there? (Score:2)
What's next? Patents on blinkenlights? Patents on the power switch?
And So It Goes... (Score:3, Interesting)
those who can't do, sue (Score:2)
It seems in the modern "free market" when you get big bloated and stupid rather than go out of business or adapt it is a legitimate course of action to instead become a parasite and suck money out of the economy by abusing the legal system.
This is unfortunate,
Don't complain about the consumer price... (Score:2)
"But it's the special firmware we put on the drive....."
Bullshit, you put it in a fancy carrier and put a couple of LEDs on the outside.
I can't wait to see the pricing on SSDs for DMX arrays.
Re: (Score:1)
EMC actually use STEC drives.
And, selling drives at enterprise level is quite different to selling them a consumer level. When you buy something as a consumer, the product is shipped to you as-is. When you buy enterprise storage, everything is thoroughly analysed, tested, qualified. Everything has redundancy. The software that is developed monitors the whole system to try and detect failures before it happens. You then have an engineer on site to correct the problem before you even realise you have a prob
the patent system isn't broken (Score:1)