Hardware and software development company Singular Computing received an undisclosed amount from Google in a federal court settlement in Massachusetts, ending the five-year civil case brought by Singular founder Dr. Joseph Bates against the tech giant by patent infringement (PDF, hosted by Register).
This infringement refers to computer architectures that facilitate artificial intelligence (AI) tool development and training of large language models (LLM) invented by Bates, which he claims found their way into Google's Tensor Processing Unit devices.
These initially powered the generative AI and smart chip features in Google Workspace, but are now available for rental through their cloud hosting provider Google Cloud, in addition to assuming the workloads of the technology giant's own data centers.
The facts were these
Of course, an out-of-court settlement is not in itself an admission of wrongdoing, precisely because such agreements are a means for both parties to avoid trial and therefore a ruling in favor of either party. Google hasn't made any statements suggesting wrongdoing on its part, so we know as much as you do.
Still, it's clear that Singular Computing has the advantage. According to the presentation, Bates “prays[ed]”that the court allow a jury trial and award damages” that were suggested in pretrial presentations (another PDF hosted on Reg, cheers buddy) will be within the range of $1.6 billion and $5.19 billion US dollars. That, ladies, gentlemen and those who describe themselves, is confidence, and it seems to have paid off (!!).
From the beginning of the case, Google denied knowledge of Bates' three relevant US patents (8407273B2, 9218156B2 and 10416961B2) and the technology it contains, which allows many low-precision calculations per processor cycle, and “look[ed] “I look forward to setting the record straight in court.”
Even now, Google spokesman José Castañeda remains tight-lipped, saying only: “We have always taken our disclosure obligations seriously and will continue to do so.” That's a very well-crafted sentence designed to mean whatever you, the reader, want, so we'll leave it.
Less cryptic, however, is a comment made by senior Google scientist Jeff Dean, who, in an internal email brought to light by Singular's complaint, wrote to colleagues that Bates' inventions were “very suitable.” ” for Google workloads. This, while definitely “rum,” to use the precise legal term, is still not an admission: Google continued, and probably continues to maintain, that no one actually working on its TPUs had access to Bates' designs.
Singular representatives have not commented following the agreement. cutting short a trial that was expected to last weeks with prejudice, meaning it is extremely unlikely that either side will be able to bring the case again in the foreseeable future.
