Alphabet’s tech giant, Google, found itself in the hot seat as it confronted a federal jury in Boston over allegations of patent infringement. Singular Computing, spearheaded by computer scientist Joseph Bates, claimed a staggering $1.67 billion in damages, asserting that Google unlawfully adopted their patented technology fueling artificial intelligence (AI) processors.
Kerry Timbers, legal representative for Singular Computing, painted a vivid picture for jurors. He argued that Google, following a series of meetings with Bates between 2010 and 2014, clandestinely appropriated his groundbreaking computer-processing innovations. Rather than obtaining proper licensing, Google allegedly absorbed Bates’ technology into its Tensor Processing Units, instrumental in powering AI features across various Google services.
Internal emails exposed during the trial portrayed Google’s chief scientist, Jeff Dean, discussing the compatibility of Bates’ concepts with the tech giant’s developments. The correspondence suggested a level of influence, with one employee admitting being “quite corrupted by Joe’s ideas.”
Timbers emphasized a broader ethical stance, stating, “This case is about something we all learned a long time ago: respect for others, don’t take what doesn’t belong to you, and give credit where credit is due.”
In a spirited defense, Google’s lawyer, Robert Van Nest, contended that the employees responsible for the chip design had never met Bates. He insisted that Google’s chips were independently developed and fundamentally distinct from Singular’s patented technology. Van Nest portrayed Bates as a “disappointed inventor” whose technology relied on approximate math, capable of generating “incorrect” calculations.
Amidst the legal clash, it was revealed that Singular had initially sought up to $7 billion in damages. However, Timbers revised the demand to $1.67 billion as the trial commenced.
Google, unveiling its processing units in 2016 to power AI applications, faced accusations that versions 2 and 3 of the units, introduced in 2017 and 2018, violated Singular’s patent rights. The legal battle extended beyond the courtroom, with a U.S. appeals court in Washington concurrently deliberating the validity of Singular’s patents, as appealed by Google from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
As the trial unfolded, the clash between innovation and intellectual property rights took center stage, challenging Google’s position in the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence.
