TSMC founder: a great story

A selfish post, since I am 50plus vanprasthashram generation, this story of starting a company at 55 suits my age. #Entrepreneurship #AgeIsJustANumber Not that I do not like 20 plus young founders. #YouthEntrepreneurship #DiversityInEntrepreneurship Once in a while you should talk about 50 plus founders. #LateBloomers #ExperienceMatters It is never too late to start a venture. #NeverTooLate #StartupMindset ---

Technology companies continue to hold most of the top spots in the annual Management Top 250 ranking of America’s best-run companies, with Apple unseating Microsoft at No. 1. Rounding out the top four are Nvidia which came in at No. 1 the previous four years and Intel. The Management Top 250 ranking compares companies using the late management guru Peter Drucker’s principles to identify the most effectively managed businesses. 

In a significant legal development, Qualcomm has secured a favorable verdict in its dispute with Arm over chip design licenses. A U.S. jury ruled in Qualcomm’s favor on two key issues, though it remained deadlocked on whether Nuvia, acquired by Qualcomm in 2021, breached its license with Arm. Arm plans to seek a retrial due to this deadlock. The Delaware judge has recommended mediation between the parties. This outcome could have far-reaching implications for the semiconductor industry, particularly concerning intellectual property rights and licensing agreements. For a comprehensive analysis, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gCGg2Xin

 The Court of Justice of the European Union upheld a 2022 decision by a lower court to annul the hefty penalty, marking a significant win for the chipmaking giant. The penalty dates back to 2009 and was originally imposed by the European Commission for Intel Corporation’s alleged abuse of market dominance... #antitrust #antitrustlaw #competitionlaw #chips #semiconductor #market #europeanunion #technology #chipmaking

Qualcomm has successfully defended its acquisition of Nuvia in a legal battle against Arm. Arm had argued that Qualcomm should pay higher licensing fees for using Nuvia's chip designs, which were developed under a specific agreement. However, the court ruled in favor of Qualcomm, allowing the company to continue selling Nuvia-based chips. Qualcomm successfully argued that its use of Nuvia technology falls within the existing license agreement and that Arm's demands for higher fees were unjustified. This victory for Qualcomm has significant implications for the semiconductor industry and the future of licensing agreements between technology companies. #Qualcomm #ARM #Nuvia #lawsuit #chips #semiconductor #semiconductors #semiconductorindustry #semiconductormanufacturing #technology #innovation #business #technologynews

Nvidia Faces Antitrust Investigation in China The move by Chinese regulators came a week after the Biden administration expanded curbs on the sale of advanced U.S. technology to China. https://ift.tt/PVReCtB

From Jorja Siemons (with an assist from me): Susman Godfrey is handling a newly formed patent holding LLC's lawsuit against chip titan Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. The accused products are several lines of allegedly infringing chips distributed to NXP/Freescale, Broadcom, MediaTek, and Intel, and allegedly incorporated into Apple and Samsung products. The asserted patents initially belonged to Panasonic's semiconductor unit, which sold to Nuvoton Technology in 2020. Nuvoton assigned 25 patents including the 7 patents-in-suit, to Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC on July 29, two days before the complaint was filed, US Patent and Trademark Office records indicate. AICP was created about a month and a half prior to the assignment. There's not a ton of information about it aside from the high-powered plaintiff-side firm working on the case. AICP's Rule 7.1 disclosure says it's wholly owned by AMTL LLC. There's a Delaware LLC by that name formed on April 1, which could be the owner, but aside from a name of a registered agent I don't see additional info on that entity. It could be a situation where Nuvoton has a stake in the litigation and is funding the litigation. The suit also has some of the hallmarks of litigation financing so it's certainly possible a big funder is involved. https://lnkd.in/edapGeAB

How do you prove a negative? Apparently not by using the tactics Apple uses in its motions to transfer venue to Northern District of California in cases before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas. The combatants (Albright v. Apple Attorneys) have been here many times before. The objective for Apple is to get any patent litigation case transferred to ND Cal, where Apple would be before home district judges who have no problem with a war of attrition defense. One problem for Apple is it has about 10,000 employees in Austin, which is within WD Texas. Apple's arguments for venue transfer typically proport the relevant witnesses are in ND Cal and not WD Texas. This case involves the assertion of US Patents 8,093,767, 8,860,337, 9,941,830, and 11,152,882, which relate to Linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules. The complaint included quality claim charts that are mapped to Apple's "Taptic Engine" technology. The accused Apple Products include modules that are literally labeled "TAPTIC ENGINE." The order includes, Second, and perhaps more irksome, Apple chose declarants who lack personal knowledge (1) as to employees located at Apple’s Austin campus and (2) any access to relevant evidence those employees may possess. The Court therefore cannot meaningfully determine whether Apple’s sources of proof are “relatively easier to access” in NDCA than WDTX. ... Worst of all, the Rollins Declaration uses language that carefully limits the scope of declared facts to his personal, selectively fed knowledge. For example, the Mr. Rollins’s supplemental declaration states, ‘I am not aware of any Apple employees located in WDTX who worked on the research, design, or development of the Accused Features.’ Then, his qualified statements are cited by Apple’s attorneys in transfer motions as though they are authoritative truths. For example, ‘Apple’s sources of proof are located in or around NDCA. There are no sources of proof located in WDTX.’ The Taptic Engine is a separate component with associated software (corehaptics). Apple should have information, from engineering management of where the group/team that developed the Taptic Engine(s) is/are located, and whom the important engineers/employees are and where they work. In response to interrogatories seeking such information, Apple asserted, "Apple does not maintain a company-wide list of all the products each employee works on." One of Apple's declarants (Chang Zhang), who manages an engineering team that implements Taptic Engines in MacBook products appears to have direct knowledge as applied to those products (observing the primary target is iPhones). The tenor of the order is Albright is tired of Apple's tactics, including repeated stonewalling on discovery requests. Apple may/will file a writ of Mandamus to the Federal Circuit, but I doubt the Federal Circuit will order transfer of venue.

Semiconductor trade secrets! Getting the right balance of patents and trade secrets is a challenge for any company, but in the semiconductor space, things get complicated. The question, "is it discoverable/reverse engineerable" is typically too blunt. Even if an invention is technically possible to reverse engineer, the limitations on tearing down chips with nanoscale features can make it practically difficult. Further, litigation, especially in the US, can lead to discovery which might enable you to "discover" things that might not be possible from the end product. On top of all of this, while there is plenty of information in the public domain about how and when to patent, there is far less about trade secrets best practise. This can make developing a trade secrets strategy difficult for small businesses. This article from IAM (behind a pay wall but key points noted here) is a really interesting read. It's an interview with TSMC's associate general counsel, Fortune Shieh, on the the trade secret registration system he developed. Key take-aways: - Put in place a systematic and structured mechanism for recording trade secrets. This is key for me. Unless you are capturing and recording trade secrets, like you do with patentable inventions, it's very difficult to know what you have and to make effective decisions about protection. - Self-evaluation metrics. Make sure you have a way to measure how useful and effective your metrics are in supporting the business. - Find super fans! Work with engineers or teams who embrace your approach to trade secrets. Once you've successfully implemented your system with them, you can role our to other parts of the business. - Provide awards for good quality trade secret development, just like you would for patents. This ensures that your engineers understand that trade secrets can be just as valuable and important as patents. These are all issues that we like to think about at Ampliphy, EIP's IP and legal service for semiconductor and electronics companies. Thanks to Maia Edilashvili Biermann at IAM for the article. EIP - Better, different.

Right to Repair Heats Up: Can You Fix Your Own Tech The fight for consumer rights in the tech industry reaches a boiling point! The debate over "Right to Repair" laws intensifies. These laws could empower you to fix your own electronics or use independent repair shops, challenging the limitations imposed by manufacturers.