AMD wins Patent Infringement lawsuit against Vizio

[LAwLz]

Wow, this thread is a shitshow.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Techstorm970 said:

You do know that there can be more than one way to solve a problem, right?  Many generations of Intel CPUs were multithreaded before Ryzen came out, but did Intel sue AMD for implementing multithreading?  No!  Why?  Because AMD found another way to multithread!  Hyperthreading and Simultaneous Multi-Threading are two different ways to do the same thing.  On the surface, they're the same thing, but below the surface, they function quite differently.  The main difference is in AMD's Infinity Fabric technology.

Ehm... No?

The infinity fabric is the interconnector. It doesn't have anything to do with SMT.

The reason why AMD wasn't sued by Intel for using SMT is because the concept of SMT was patented by Sun, not Intel.

I am not sure what deal AMD has with Sun in order to allow for SMT to be used, but it's probably some licensing deal. Besides, even if it was Intel then AMD could probably use it because of their cross-license agreement.

Where did you get all these ideas from, such as SMT in Ryzen and Intel processors being very different?

 

 

11 hours ago, Techstorm970 said:

So, your argument that "any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it" is not very well thought through.  AMD, NVIDIA, Imagination, Intel, and the others all have their own approaches to graphics processing.  They can be similar, but as long as they aren't too similar, it's ok!  It's why NVIDIA has Pascal and Turing, while AMD has Polaris and Vega.  If everybody's solution was the same, then there'd at least be a lot more lawsuits.

Well, a big reason why there aren't more lawsuits flying around is because of licensing agreements.

It is impossible to make a functioning GPU these days without infringing hundreds of patents. So companies with many patents tells each other "you can use this patent, if I can you that patent of yours".

It mutually benefits the ones exchanging patents, and it also serves to build up a massive barrier to entry, which makes sure no new competitors can enter the market because they will lack all the necessary patent deals.

 

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

If all patents/copyrights died so would tech advancements, it's economics 101, no reward = no investment.  You wouldn't be enjoying 2018 technology without 18th century patents. In fact modern life as we know it would not exist because everything you enjoy from medicine through computers to cars and food were advanced by entrepreneurs looking to make a dollar. 

Not true.

Patents is a relatively new concept. Modern patent laws are around 200 years old. And let me tell you, we were not still cavemen 200 years ago because nobody wanted to invent anything.

People still developed things. People wouldn't give up on cancer research just because they wouldn't be able to patent the cure.

It would be far less economical driving force behind research in some sectors, but to claim that it would completely die out is ridiculous.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Disney holds very few patents, and copyright is a very different topic.

I would like to point out that Disney holds a massive amount of patents.

We're talking thousands upon thousands of patents. Everything from patents to games in their theme parks, to compression algorithms, practical effect rigs, animation techniques and so on.

But yeah, the person you responded to was thinking of copyright and not patents.

 

8 hours ago, Sakkura said:

When it comes to this particular case, I'm just a little annoyed that AMD is going after third parties like Vizio. Vizio aren't really making GPUs that infringe on AMD patents, that stuff comes from people like Mediatek and ARM.

That's what I was thinking too.

If you ask me, who is not educated in law whatsoever, the entire case should have been thrown out of court and AMD asked to go after the ones actually designing the GPUs.

This is the same scenario as when Nvidia tried to sue Samsung.

 

It's such a disgusting thing to do and I absolutely hate it. Fuck AMD for doing this. Grow some balls and go after ARM instead. And before someone asks, that is the same response I gave to Nvidia when they sued Samsung for using GPU designs from ARM, Qualcomm and Imagination.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dionyz said:

How about you make a awesome product, and everyone starts to copy your idea then makes money off of it? How would you feel?

Great!

I mostly deal with software and is a strong believer in open source. I would feel very honored if my code was deemed good enough to be used in lots of other projects.

[yian88]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

If all patents/copyrights died so would tech advancements, it's economics 101, no reward = no investment.  You wouldn't be enjoying 2018 technology without 18th century patents. In fact modern life as we know it would not exist because everything you enjoy from medicine through computers to cars and food were advanced by entrepreneurs looking to make a dollar. 

Maybe the only copyright allowed should be brand name copyright.

But tech patents are stupid, way too stupid,  basically you and me work on some technology you have more money and employees and finish 10 years ahead of me, you patent your shit and NO ONE else will ever be allowed to develop the same tech, thats a load of horsecrap.

All patents for ANY tech should only last at most 10 years and never be extended ever again, after the 10 years ANYONe can build the same technology as they see fit, if a certain company didnt make profit in 10 years off their patents i couldnt care less, better let others have a go at it.

 

The GPU/CPU patents are the worst, what do you mean i cant hire a group of engineers and figure out from the ground up how to build a GPU or a CPU with different tech because i get harrassed by patent lawsuits? i  "infringe fundamental aspects of modern gpu/cpu" ? fuck that this is holding us back in order to make a few corporations rich, the whole patent system is.

 

You are wrong on all levels full of bullshit, look at China, its filled with copy's of copies of copies none respecting anything or each other and their economy isnt colapsing its thriving, look at chinese phones so many great midrange phones that cost almost nothing compared to samsung and apple patentented garbage.

Luckily we had linux which allowed enough freedom so android was build , and android + china = crazy phone diversity at affordable prices, and no one is complaining.

Imagine a world of iOS + WindowsPhone proprieatary crap and 1000$ flagship that cost 200$ to build.

Ive analyzed this issue for long enough to come to the conclusion that removing patents or limiting them to 5-10 years  would boost standard of living tremendously, think about all the ultra expensive medicine we could get for cheap if corporations wouldnt blackmail us with unnafordable drugs that real cost is probably <5% of their prices.

 

In fact i would go even further and create and Open Alliance of technology, of medicine and so on where companies can collaborate and share technology/patents at no cost.

Look at the HEVC patents/costs disaster vs AV1 codec by AOMedia situation, HEVC is getting the boot soon, look at the RISC-V popularity, and everything is moving to open source, open standards, open licenses.

I cant wait for more and more open/patent free CPU/GPU arch/designs, that would make hardware sooo much cheaper,  the current processors we are buying are probably 2-3 times overpriced, if we had no patents on the tech and more competitors that could figure out how to build them cheaper we would have an explosion of cheaper cpu/gpu on the market, and companies like intel/amd would still make most money/sales because they have more experience/rep/ R&D budget, just like Samsung/Apple sell most phones at great profit margin even tough their bang for buck sucks balls.

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Not true.

Patents is a relatively new concept. Modern patent laws are around 200 years old. And let me tell you, we were not still cavemen 200 years ago because nobody wanted to invent anything.

People still developed things. People wouldn't give up on cancer research just because they wouldn't be able to patent the cure.

It would be far less economical driving force behind research in some sectors, but to claim that it would completely die out is ridiculous.

 

 

I did say 18th century, for example James watt was big on patents in 1776 and 1781 onward.  Of course there would still be research and some development, but it would largely be from government funding which would be rather scarce as without patents much of the economical success of many companies would not be. Ergo less incomes tax, less sales tax and less corporate tax. 
 

Quote

We estimate a significant positive effect of patent laws on economic growth in different specifications of fixed effects, random effects, time effects, dynamic panel GMM and differences-in-differences models. This effect is also economically significant.

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-effect-of-patent-laws-on-economic-growth-evidence-from-crosscountry-panels-during-16001913-2375-4516-1000145.php?aid=60220

 

Without patent law you can kiss a lot of development and economic growth goodbye.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I'd argue that the copyright term is also good for the common folk rather than the corporation. Sure it just happens to help corporations in lots of cases, but at the same time, it can protect someone who doesn't have any resources to fight of bigwigs to protect their works from being taken over and exploited.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Maybe the only copyright allowed should be brand name copyright.

But tech patents are stupid, way too stupid,  basically you and me work on some technology you have more money and employees and finish 10 years ahead of me, you patent your shit and NO ONE else will ever be allowed to develop the same tech, thats a load of horsecrap.

All patents for ANY tech should only last at most 10 years and never be extended ever again, after the 10 years ANYONe can build the same technology as they see fit, if a certain company didnt make profit in 10 years off their patents i couldnt care less, better let others have a go at it.

 

The GPU/CPU patents are the worst, what do you mean i cant hire a group of engineers and figure out from the ground up how to build a GPU or a CPU with different tech because i get harrassed by patent lawsuits? i  "infringe fundamental aspects of modern gpu/cpu" ? fuck that this is holding us back in order to make a few corporations rich, the whole patent system is.

 

You are wrong on all levels full of bullshit, look at China, its filled with copy's of copies of copies none respecting anything or each other and their economy isnt colapsing its thriving, look at chinese phones so many great midrange phones that cost almost nothing compared to samsung and apple patentented garbage.

Luckily we had linux which allowed enough freedom so android was build , and android + china = crazy phone diversity at affordable prices, and no one is complaining.

Imagine a world of iOS + WindowsPhone proprieatary crap and 1000$ flagship that cost 200$ to build.

Ive analyzed this issue for long enough to come to the conclusion that removing patents or limiting them to 5-10 years  would boost standard of living tremendously, think about all the ultra expensive medicine we could get for cheap if corporations wouldnt blackmail us with unnafordable drugs that real cost is probably <5% of their prices.

 

In fact i would go even further and create and Open Alliance of technology, of medicine and so on where companies can collaborate and share technology/patents at no cost.

Look at the HEVC patents/costs disaster vs AV1 codec by AOMedia situation, HEVC is getting the boot soon, look at the RISC-V popularity, and everything is moving to open source, open standards, open licenses.

I cant wait for more and more open/patent free CPU/GPU arch/designs, that would make hardware sooo much cheaper,  the current processors we are buying are probably 2-3 times overpriced, if we had no patents on the tech and more competitors that could figure out how to build them cheaper we would have an explosion of cheaper cpu/gpu on the market, and companies like intel/amd would still make most money/sales because they have more experience/rep/ R&D budget, just like Samsung/Apple sell most phones at great profit margin even tough their bang for buck sucks balls.

Maybe take a course in basic economics.  Or just look back at history.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

I'd argue that the copyright term is also good for the common folk rather than the corporation. Sure it just happens to help corporations in lots of cases, but at the same time, it can protect someone who doesn't have any resources to fight of bigwigs to protect their works from being taken over and exploited.

That's exactly why copyright exists,  as soon as you pen something on paper or draw a picture, so long as it is original and you can prove you drew it first, it is automatically copyright to you.

[yian88]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Maybe take a course in basic economics.  Or just look back at history.

 

No ty fake economics that benefit the few. In a modern society patents arent required anymore. Patents are an excess of capitalism, capitalism is good if kept in check, otherwise you get america,  where you cant afford basic drugs/medicine, and you have to pay 1000$ for 1Gb/s fiber internet, when in east europe you get it for 10$.

Again the model works but for the profit of the few while the consumer gets economically raped.

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Ive analyzed this issue for long enough to come to the conclusion that removing patents or limiting them to 5-10 years  would boost standard of living tremendously, think about all the ultra expensive medicine we could get for cheap if corporations wouldnt blackmail us with unnafordable drugs that real cost is probably <5% of their prices.

You can get those medications for cheap: https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/us-drug-prices-higher-vs-world/

 

The problem is that the corporations have free reign to buttduck Americans for some reason.

[mr moose]

Just now, yian88 said:

No ty fake economics that benefit the few. In a modern society patents arent required anymore. Patents are an excess of capitalism, capitalism is good if kept in check, otherwise you get america,  where you cant afford basic drugs/medicine, and you have to pay 1000$ for 1Gb/s fiber internet, when in east europe you get it for 10$.

Again the model works but for the profit of the few while the consumer gets economically raped.

fake news huh?

[Mira Yurizaki]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-effect-of-patent-laws-on-economic-growth-evidence-from-crosscountry-panels-during-16001913-2375-4516-1000145.php?aid=60220

 

Without patent law you can kiss a lot of development and economic growth goodbye.

The only scenario where I can think this is true is when someone comes up with something that works "good enough" and because it wasn't protected by patents, everyone else just uses the "good enough" method. But with a patent in place, someone may come up with something that's "different enough, same results" or "better than what's there"

 

Case in point:

(okay, I'll bite the end result doesn't help the argument much)

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The only scenario where I can think this is true is when someone comes up with something that works "good enough" and because it wasn't protected by patents, everyone else just uses the "good enough" method. But with a patent in place, someone may come up with something that's "different enough, same results" or "better than what's there"

 

Case in point:

(okay, I'll bite the end result doesn't help the argument much)

I don't know how invested in this subject others are, but it has been a hobby (IP, copyright and corporate function in economics/society) of mine for a very long time.  We can always find the odd story or report here and there that supports whatever ideal we may have on the topic of copyright and IP, but at the end of the day the overwhelming consensus is that it grows economies and pushes development of new and better technologies.   Given it is a system we have had in use since the 18th century we can see demonstrably and emphatically that it does not prevent new inventors or startups from competing.

 

EDIT: I enjoyed watching that video, I wish it had of been around in 2003 when morons on the forums were trying to argue that CRT didn't have physical resolutions.

[Aetheria]

Perhaps between the extremes of 'all patents should be abolished' to 'nuh uhh, patents are fundamental to progress', we can at least agree that the status quo isn't making the graphics market very competitive? These aren't goldrush times, efficiency is king in the tech industry, and it doesn't take many legally-mandated patent workarounds to make your products uncompetitive. Not even Intel have been able to break in to anything but the very low-end of the graphics market, and they've had every advantage and a long time to do so.

 

There's also an opportunity cost associated with having all your best and brightest working on solutions for purely legal problems. That's not progress. The fifty people who've been reinventing the wheel could have been inventing something genuinely new, better, and of more use than just allowing one company to avoid a licensing fee.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

fake news huh?

When people complain about patents what they are actually complaining about is current patent laws, it doesn't take a lot of research to find that patents are in fact good and beneficial to all however it doesn't take much research to also find current patent laws are broken as hell.

 

Having no patents wouldn't help prevent big companies stomping out competition and stifling innovation, just copy the new guy and sell for lower until they go broke, they'll cave first. This is one of the reasons patents exist, so someone new can come along and survive.

[Jito463]

14 hours ago, Techstorm970 said:

Hyperthreading and Simultaneous Multi-Threading are two different ways to do the same thing.  On the surface, they're the same thing, but below the surface, they function quite differently.

Technically speaking, HyperThreading *is* Simultaneous Multi-Threading, HT is simply Intel's marketing term for it.

12 hours ago, Sakkura said:

When it comes to this particular case, I'm just a little annoyed that AMD is going after third parties like Vizio. Vizio aren't really making GPUs that infringe on AMD patents, that stuff comes from people like Mediatek and ARM.

Doesn't ARM simply license the technology to companies, and they implement it themselves?  I could be mistaken on that, though.

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I mostly deal with software and is a strong believer in open source. I would feel very honored if my code was deemed good enough to be used in lots of other projects.

Would you feel as honored if someone took your code and used it without giving you any credit?

[Trixanity]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Patents is a relatively new concept. Modern patent laws are around 200 years old. And let me tell you, we were not still cavemen 200 years ago because nobody wanted to invent anything.

People still developed things. People wouldn't give up on cancer research just because they wouldn't be able to patent the cure.

It would be far less economical driving force behind research in some sectors, but to claim that it would completely die out is ridiculous.

To be fair, in the last couple of centuries and especially in the last couple of decades it has become so much easier and faster to copy than it would have been a thousand years ago.

 

Access to information, access to education and access to talented people has never been easier.

 

The problem is finding the balance between the sharing of knowledge and protecting ideas and investments.

 

Right now it's a shit show but it'd be an even bigger shit show if we went to either extreme (abolishing all patents making it free for all or making patents easier to acquire and withhold).

 

Reform is necessary but if it was that easy it would have happened already and I imagine interest groups are lopsided in their power. So there is probably a vested interest and therefore backing in maintaining the current system as those who benefit are those who already have the money to maintain it.

[Stefan Payne]

40 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Doesn't ARM simply license the technology to companies, and they implement it themselves?  I could be mistaken on that, though.

They do both!

They license the instruction set to everyone interested and they do their CPUs themselves (like Samsung Exynos, possibly Apple).

They also do reference implementations like the Cortex A53 for the CPU side.

And ARM also has the MALI Graphics cores as well.

[Sniperfox47]

Modern patent law is a joke. The resistance it creates to any kind of competition is absolutely stupid. These existing companies have no reason to lisence out to incumbents at all, much less at reasonable prices.

 

When printing presses were a thing a 20 year term made sense. There wasn't anywhere near the rate of advancement that there is nowadays. If you came out with a printing press using 20 year old technology you'd be behind but you could compete with it and Innovate in your own ways. Nowadays if you bring out a GPU using 20 year old design concept and try to compete then RIP.

 

And I haven't actually read through these patents since I don't have the time to scrutinize them right now, but are these even specific to an implimentation. The titles make them sound pretty "patenting a concept" which should never be a thing because it serves to prevent innovation, not encourage it. You patent your solution. You don't patent the problem.

 

3 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'd argue that the copyright term is also good for the common folk rather than the corporation. Sure it just happens to help corporations in lots of cases, but at the same time, it can protect someone who doesn't have any resources to fight of bigwigs to protect their works from being taken over and exploited.

Except that copyright doesn't magically prevent people from stealing and abusing your work, which happens a *TON* with small time creatives, especially artists.

 

You still need to seek legal action against the person infringing upon your copyright which can cost ludicrous amounts of money for tiny damages rewards, and that's if you can even prove damages.

 

DMCA takedowns are a thing but they're rather hard to make use of as an independent and a lot of sites from other parts of the world will just totally ignore them, putting you into the same "expensive legal battle" situation if you want your work removed.

 

Modern copyright is a total sham for small time independents.

 

25 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

They do both!

They license the instruction set to everyone interested and they do their CPUs themselves (like Samsung Exynos, possibly Apple).

They also do reference implementations like the Cortex A53 for the CPU side.

And ARM also has the MALI Graphics cores as well.

Umm their reference implimentations are also just designs, they don't actually make and sell chips. It's up to the SoC developer to lisence the design and plop it into their chip during fabrication.

[yian88]

4 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The only scenario where I can think this is true is when someone comes up with something that works "good enough" and because it wasn't protected by patents, everyone else just uses the "good enough" method. But with a patent in place, someone may come up with something that's "different enough, same results" or "better than what's there"

 

False perception of reality.

Once patents arent an issue businesses will compete very hard, and in order to differentiate they will have to come up with something better/different.

Imagine if Steve Jobs patented the iPhone Smartphone design and no one else in the world can make a touchscreen smartphone with like a computer with camera and internet on it because they invented it. Something like that is what is happening to the rest of the patents nowdays, like the x86 instruction set hold exclusively by amd/intel.

 

Look at chinese companies like Xiaomi and many other that make little profit off their devices but use a different marketing approach where they sell for low prices to gain reputation and sell other products aswell.

 

I for sure know which model i prefer between Apple smartphone utopian world at 1000$ with 1gb ram, or free linux/android world with flagship killer smartphones for <300$, it doesnt even have to beat flagships, most midrange phones are so good nowdays they make flagships irrelevant for majority of users.

The end result is that there is place for everyone in a freer market without patents.

 

The best model is free economy with little government intervention and lenient or no patent laws.

[Jito463]

26 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Imagine if Steve Jobs patented the iPhone Smartphone design and no one else in the world can make a touchscreen smartphone with like a computer with camera and internet on it because they invented it.

Steve Jobs did not invent the smartphone, or even the touchscreen display smartphone.  Just did a quick search on DDG, and found this in under five seconds:

 

http://www.spinfold.com/first-touchscreen-phone/

Quote

When was the first touchscreen phone invented?

 

The first touchscreen phone was launched in 1992 by IBM.The IBM Simon is also referred as the first smartphone. Simon is the first smartphone to be incorporated with the features of a PDA. It was refined further and marketed to consumers in 1994 by BellSouth corporation an American telecommunications holding company based in Atlanta, Georgia. When it was launched, it was launched under the name Simon Personal Communicator.

 

Not just receiving and making phone calls, it was also able to send e-mails, faxes and messages.It also featured very useful applications like calendar,appointment scheduler, calculator, world clock,electronic notepad, address book etc.,

No camera, but it definitely had connectivity outside of making calls.

[Okjoek]

Patents are great for stifling innovation and propping up monopolies.

[Dionyz]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Great!

I mostly deal with software and is a strong believer in open source. I would feel very honored if my code was deemed good enough to be used in lots of other projects.

That's assuming your current position as financially stable, but if on the other hand you needed cash then you would feel differently. 

 

AMD I would say is not financially stable through these years. Lost its main headquarters. This little bit helps them out. 

[jsjones008]

On 8/25/2018 at 4:55 PM, yian88 said:

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

I'd much rather companies get their due for coming up with tech advancements than having cheap imitations that are only cheap because they didn't pay licensing. It's the only thing that keeps companies developing new tech.

 

Think of it from a business standpoint: If I come up with something and someone else can steal it with no repercussions and make money off of it, why should I even develop new technology?

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Modern patent law is a joke. The resistance it creates to any kind of competition is absolutely stupid. These existing companies have no reason to lisence out to incumbents at all, much less at reasonable prices.

 

When printing presses were a thing a 20 year term made sense. There wasn't anywhere near the rate of advancement that there is nowadays. If you came out with a printing press using 20 year old technology you'd be behind but you could compete with it and Innovate in your own ways. Nowadays if you bring out a GPU using 20 year old design concept and try to compete then RIP.

 

And I haven't actually read through these patents since I don't have the time to scrutinize them right now, but are these even specific to an implimentation. The titles make them sound pretty "patenting a concept" which should never be a thing because it serves to prevent innovation, not encourage it. You patent your solution. You don't patent the problem.

 

Except that copyright doesn't magically prevent people from stealing and abusing your work, which happens a *TON* with small time creatives, especially artists.

 

You still need to seek legal action against the person infringing upon your copyright which can cost ludicrous amounts of money for tiny damages rewards, and that's if you can even prove damages.

 

DMCA takedowns are a thing but they're rather hard to make use of as an independent and a lot of sites from other parts of the world will just totally ignore them, putting you into the same "expensive legal battle" situation if you want your work removed.

 

Modern copyright is a total sham for small time independents.

 

Umm their reference implimentations are also just designs, they don't actually make and sell chips. It's up to the SoC developer to lisence the design and plop it into their chip during fabrication.

Patenting a concept is exactly what this is, and that's not exactly bad,  that's why it's called intellectual property. It's not always a physical thing.  The hard work in some inventions is not the device itself but is in the process and how that resolves a problem or performs a function.  20 years may mean nothing to the process of GPU performance, if you take unified shaders out of current GPU's then they all become noncompetitive (that's why turing has them).

[Clanscorpia]

7 hours ago, yian88 said:

False perception of reality.

Once patents arent an issue businesses will compete very hard, and in order to differentiate they will have to come up with something better/different.

Imagine if Steve Jobs patented the iPhone Smartphone design and no one else in the world can make a touchscreen smartphone with like a computer with camera and internet on it because they invented it. Something like that is what is happening to the rest of the patents nowdays, like the x86 instruction set hold exclusively by amd/intel.

 

Look at chinese companies like Xiaomi and many other that make little profit off their devices but use a different marketing approach where they sell for low prices to gain reputation and sell other products aswell.

 

I for sure know which model i prefer between Apple smartphone utopian world at 1000$ with 1gb ram, or free linux/android world with flagship killer smartphones for <300$, it doesnt even have to beat flagships, most midrange phones are so good nowdays they make flagships irrelevant for majority of users.

The end result is that there is place for everyone in a freer market without patents.

 

The best model is free economy with little government intervention and lenient or no patent laws.

That wouldnt happen, at all. Thats a very idealistic view of what would happen. Monopolies would be created because the companies with more money would just copy all the good things and make them better, without giving the smaller players the chance. The patent system allows smaller companies to come up with new ideas and keep them theirs without the big companies stiffing them out.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Patenting a concept is exactly what this is, and that's not exactly bad,  that's why it's called intellectual property. It's not always a physical thing.  The hard work in some inventions is not the device itself but is in the process and how that resolves a problem or performs a function.  20 years may mean nothing to the process of GPU performance, if you take unified shaders out of current GPU's then they all become noncompetitive (that's why turing has them).

Spreadable butter would be that, the equipment used to make it is no different to anything else but it's the specific process in making the butter that makes it easily spreadable even when cold.