Intel’s agreement to pay $300 million to settle a patent dispute with a tiny chip design company is a vindication for a Silicon Valley technologist who was once considered one of the region’s visionaries, then vanished from the scene.

The technologist is John Moussouris, a 55-year-old physicist and computer designer, who in 1988 formed a company called MicroUnity as an early effort to bring about a convergence of computing and conventional audio and video media. During the early 1990s, MicroUnity was briefly one of Silicon Valley’s highest fliers, with backing from Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola and the cable industry.

With more than $100 million in financing, it embarked on the unheard-of strategy of building a chip factory in Silicon Valley, long after most of the region’s companies had given up on the idea, instead building new plants in Asia or other low-cost manufacturing areas. But by the mid-1990s MicroUnity’s efforts had foundered.

Click through to the whole article. There’s lots of interesting detail.

As part of its quarterly earnings report, Intel announced on Tuesday that it had settled a patent suit brought last year by MicroUnity. Of the $300 million to be paid, $140 million was charged against earnings in Intel’s most recent quarter.

The deal assures Intel of access to MicroUnity technology, which is used in Intel’s current family of Pentium chips, and to patents that MicroUnity has developed more recently. MicroUnity holds 56 patents and has published 14 additional patent applications.

The agreement covers features like hyperthreading, which allows software to perform multiple tasks more efficiently, and processing designs for handling video and audio data. An Intel spokesman, Chuck Mulloy, said Wednesday that the settlement was “in the best interest of the company and the shareholders.”

Moussouris was a protégé of a legendary IBM computer designer, John Cocke, and in 1984 co-founded Mips Computer Systems, a pioneering microprocessor developer. In 1988, he assembled a small team of skilled computer designers and set about creating a style of computing that would later become known as “media processing.”

Several years ago, Moussouris said his goal was to create a generation of technology more broadly accessible than current computers.

“I dreamed of building a computer my grandmother would enjoy,” he said.

Nice to see that he prevailed. It ain’t easy — and I wonder what he’ll come up with, next. He certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of person who would take the money and go live on a desert island.



  1. Ima Fish says:

    I’m not saying that $300 million isn’t a lot of money, but it sounds like chump change coming from Intel.

    Intel supposedly has quarterly revenues of $9.96 billion! Nearly $40 billion a year is pretty good money in my book.

    http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/10/17/daily27.html

  2. Ed Campbell says:

    So, Fish — are you saying you would turn down $300 million? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

  3. Karovd C. Nhoj says:

    He should have gotten royalties from Intel’s technology based on his patents as well as technology based on that technology etc….

  4. Zuke says:

    Ugh, don’t tell me Intel ripped off tech too. After I just posted a nice comment about them in yesterday’s article’s as being one of the few leading companies out there kicking butt based on quality/innovation.

    I’m surprised they didn’t just wear this guy down with their deep pockets until he went bankrupt or died. Kinda like what Microsoft did to Gary Kildall & CP/M, stealing DOS, and eventually growing into the largest company in the world.

    http://museum.sysun.com/museum/cpmhist.html

    That writeup has a great last line…

  5. Ima Fish says:

    Hey, it’s a lot of money; all I’m saying is that it was what lawyers called a token payment to get rid of the litigation. It may be a lot for us, but it’s absolutely nothing for Intel.

    Let’s put it in perspective. That 300 million dollar settlement is only .75% of one year of Intel’s revenue. Let’s say you make $100,000 a year. That’d be like you settling a case against you for $750. Does that put it in perspective?!

  6. Jim Dermitt says:

    More low-cost manufacturing. Bottoms up!!
    ———————————————————————————-
    An appeal for literally thousands of empty beverage cans — for a construction research effort — has been made by Hank Hinterberger, NAL Technical Services, and Robert Sheldon, Main Ring.

    “The use of garbage to some beneficial end is being given nation-wide consideration,” said Hinterberger. “We, at NAL, have concluded that there is a possibility that pollution from cans strewn throughout the countryside might be profitably exploited in the architectural development of a portion of the Laboratory.”
    Source: The Village Crier Vol. 3 No. 1, January 7, 1971

    So remember: when you’re taking the pause that refreshes, sipping the un-cola, or making Milwaukee more famous… you may be contributing to a challenging endeavor at NAL. Bottoms up!!
    http://history.fnal.gov/dome.html

  7. mike cannali says:

    How about all the key technology that is assigned to major corporations by their employee inventors. The inventor gets a harty handclasp and a $25 savings bond. Meanwhile, the corporation makes billions off of the direct application of the idea, licenses to others, and cross licenses that enable corporations to execute on ideas that their employees didn’t invent.

    Excuse me – this is true for the US, but in Europe, where by law the employee – inventors get residuals based on their creative efforts – just like motion picture and music artists.

    If it is OK for the RIAA and MPAA to perpetually extract pounds of flesh for the use of the creative efforts of their members and exmembers, —- why is it alos OK for employee – inventors to be cut off with nothing. Who benefits society more?


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 7164 access attempts in the last 7 days.