Slashdot Mirror

you cannot volunteer your technology to become part of a standard and then later hold the industry (or competitors in the industry) to ransom by selectively refusing to license that technology on FRAND terms

You're got it backwards. It's Samsung that has "essential" patents and demanding payment but it's Apple that's refusing to pay anything for them

Yawn. That ITC decision was invalidated - because it was bullshit. And everybody defending Samsung's practice to unilateral revocation of a licensing agreement for SEPs to a chipmaker if the chips are sold to Apple is a patent troll just like Samsung, only of a different kind.

you cannot volunteer your technology to become part of a standard and then later hold the industry (or competitors in the industry) to ransom by selectively refusing to license that technology on FRAND terms

You're got it backwards. It's Samsung that has "essential" patents and demanding payment but it's Apple that's refusing to pay anything for them. So ironically, thanks to the US's obvious native-company favouritism, a company with essential patents (like Samsung's) can't get money or redress, while a company with trivial, obvious patents (like Apple with rounded corners, hyperlinks, search bars, etc) can sue, and sue, and sue, and sue till the sun dies. Basically, Apple gets to pirate Samsung's essential patents in the US, thanks to govt protectionism.

Apple wants a royalty rate of $24 per unit from Samsung for its alleged use of Apple's design patent, the notorious tablet shape with rounded corners ... when Samsung asked Apple for a much lower amount per unit that everybody else in the market pays for Samsung's standards patents, Apple refused, offered no counter-offer, and sued instead. To date, it's paid nothing at all for those patents or for the other regular patents Samsung is accusing Apple of infringing. In its trial brief, Apple states in one header:
        To The Extent That Samsung Is Entitled To Any Remedy, its FRAND Damages Cannot Exceed $0.0049 Per Unit for Each Infringed Patent
        Less than a penny should be Samsung's lot for patents that are essential to even be in the mobile phone business, but Apple wants Samsung to pay $24 for rounded corners, plus from $2.02 and up to $3.10 per unit for its utility patents.

The Commission also found that Apple had failed to argue other FRAND-based defenses, such as promissory estoppel, laches or fraud. Finally, the Commission determined that even if Apple had offered evidence of the proper interpretation of ETSI’s IPR policy and had shown that the patents at issue were actually necessary to practice the standard, that the FRAND declaration was a legally enforceable obligation, and that Samsung was required to grant irrevocable licenses under FRAND terms to any party, it still would not have found in Apple’s favor, because the parties’ final offers were sufficiently close to each other that Samsung did not violate its obligation to negotiate in good faith.

you cannot volunteer your technology to become part of a standard and then later hold the industry (or competitors in the industry) to ransom by selectively refusing to license that technology on FRAND terms

You're got it backwards. It's Samsung that has "essential" patents and demanding payment but it's Apple that's refusing to pay anything for them. So ironically, thanks to the US's obvious native-company favouritism, a company with essential patents (like Samsung's) can't get money or redress, while a company with trivial, obvious patents (like Apple with rounded corners, hyperlinks, search bars, etc) can sue, and sue, and sue, and sue till the sun dies. Basically, Apple gets to pirate Samsung's essential patents in the US, thanks to govt protectionism.

Apple wants a royalty rate of $24 per unit from Samsung for its alleged use of Apple's design patent, the notorious tablet shape with rounded corners ... when Samsung asked Apple for a much lower amount per unit that everybody else in the market pays for Samsung's standards patents, Apple refused, offered no counter-offer, and sued instead. To date, it's paid nothing at all for those patents or for the other regular patents Samsung is accusing Apple of infringing. In its trial brief, Apple states in one header:
        To The Extent That Samsung Is Entitled To Any Remedy, its FRAND Damages Cannot Exceed $0.0049 Per Unit for Each Infringed Patent
        Less than a penny should be Samsung's lot for patents that are essential to even be in the mobile phone business, but Apple wants Samsung to pay $24 for rounded corners, plus from $2.02 and up to $3.10 per unit for its utility patents.

The Commission also found that Apple had failed to argue other FRAND-based defenses, such as promissory estoppel, laches or fraud. Finally, the Commission determined that even if Apple had offered evidence of the proper interpretation of ETSI’s IPR policy and had shown that the patents at issue were actually necessary to practice the standard, that the FRAND declaration was a legally enforceable obligation, and that Samsung was required to grant irrevocable licenses under FRAND terms to any party, it still would not have found in Apple’s favor, because the parties’ final offers were sufficiently close to each other that Samsung did not violate its obligation to negotiate in good faith.

Let's not forget it would make it illegal for doctors (or their families) to own hospitals. How dare some otologist, cardiologist, or plastic surgeon have their own operating room. Filthy pig-dog capitalists!

It'll be interesting to see how the intellectual property of this research is delimited. This historical case (top of page) between L'Oreal (now owners of the Body Shop I believe) and a lesser known perfumery, was ruled on the basis that scents are a "work of the mind" and so fall under the same principles of authorship as music and film.

Put simply, is the sea or the scientist the author of this smell? Could this research lab sue another organistion company for producing a similar smell even if not using the same techniques? Similarly, does a field recording of the 'dawn chorus' of toads somewhere in the tropics belong to the toads or the man recording it? I've mixed field recordings (cicadas, birds, wind, thunder) into film in the past, handed to me in the form of a highly protected Sample CD, the likes of which are used again and again in numerous feature-films the world over. The samples themselves have not been consciously treated, they are not 'coloured' in any way (that's the idea of course). Perhaps this same absurdity will carry over to the world of scent reproduction.

IMHO, insurance is futile, you are better off hiring the best legal help you can find. If you are doing something that important you should consult with an IP law specialists about protecting your IP before you even start the project. Contrary to what most people believe the top law firms do a lot of pro bono work and are open to flexible payment arrangements. As someone with quite a bit of experience in the world of IP protection (I mean legal, not just firewalls), I can recommend the following law firms for IP protection pertaining to software, e-commerce and the Internet in general:

• Baker & McKenzie
• White & Case
• McDermott, Will & Emery
• Shearman & Sterling

For further details on those law firms check out the largest 250 law firms in the U.S. Oh and I am in no way affiliated with any of those firms, of course.

First, the patent claims call out a central computer (server), and a plurality of remote terminal means (clients), and modems. This means that the owners of the server can at best be sued for contributory infringement which means that they, along with the users, together infringe. This is a much harder case.

Second, most computers currently used are not terminals, they are independent PCs. Therefore, BT must use the doctrine of equivalents to show infringement. This is not easy.

Third, the claims are in the "means for" format. This means that only the appartus that is actually described in the specification can infringe the patent. Now the specification (which is the body of the patent) describes a system that uses analog modems to connect to a central computer via telephone lines (no network here).

This patent really appears to be about using an index of abbreviations (like titles) which are individually unique, to request data. The unique titles refer to unique addresses, at which the data is located. This certainly is not hyperlinks, except by the most strained of interpretations.

Don't expect this case to change the world of patents. Maybe, expect this case to be settled, if BT is asking for less than a lawyer would charge (if the licensing fee is under $100,000, it's just simpler to pay up... a standard patent lawsuit costs $1.5M or more.) Or, expect this patent go away when at the Markman hearing it is interpretted to not cover hyperlinks.

Thalia

This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.