Cisco Sued over OFDM Wireless Standards

Agent Green writes "It's definitely not the first time someone has been sued over a standard, but Wi-LAN is in the process of taking Cisco to court over the OFDM encoding which it claims to have patents for - the standards in question apply to 802.11a/g. Interestingly, this case is being brought in Canada, where the defense needs to prove its case. Might be time to join and expand the patent busting brigade?"

Comments

Sue a Standard?

[Sneeka2]

Why is it possible to sue a company which makes use of an official standardised specification like 802.11g? If something is an open standard, everybody is free to use it, unless some royalty conditions are specifically included, right? If any company has a patent on any part of a technology, it is usually a proprietary solution and not an official specification, right? So, wouldn't you need to sue the committee that approved this specific technology as standard, rather than the individuals using the standard?

Re:Sue a Standard?

[CaptainAlbert]

> If something is an open standard, everybody
> is free to use it

Right. Except that not all standards are open. :(

> If any company has a patent on any part of a
> technology, it is usually a proprietary solution
> and not an official specification, right?

Wrong. And yes, I was horrified when I discovered this too. But it's really common for an industry standard to contain patented technologies. For example, many emerging communications standards are employing Turbo codes (which have been mentioned on Slashdot before, with various degrees of cluefulness). Now these were invented quite recently, by some French researchers, and they perform incredibly well. But in order to implement these standards, you (or your supplier, or their supplier) have to pay royalties.

The approval committees never actually infringe any patents, so they aren't a sensible target for litigation. They are, however, a sensible target for loud and persistent complaints about patents-in-standards. Most of them have vested interests in the big companies who implement the standards anyway, so don't hold your breath for a change of heart which might actually encourage competition in those markets. :-\

Re:Sue a Standard?

[Sneeka2]

So what you're saying is, that even if a specification is approved and it does not have a big fat 'COMPANY XYZ OWNZ THIS TECHNOLOGY, YOU WILL NEED TO PAY IF YOU USE THIS STANDARD!' on it, you'd still need to parse all the difference aspects of the specification and compare them with all filed patents at the USPO? Or the EPO? Or any county's patent office for that matter?

OMFG!

Re:Sue a Standard?

[jokkebk]

> But it's really common for an industry standard to
> contain patented technologies.

And it's also common to try and patent everything you can while the standardization process is under way. As far as I recall, many telecom companies and cellphone manufacturers hold a wide portfolio of GSM-related patents.

And because corporations are doing this, there is a large incentive for others to patent things in the standard, too, so they can swap and not end up paying huge royalties for other companies involved in forging the industry standard.

Re:exactly!

[sigaar]

OK, fair enough. I'm throwhing a party on Saturday night. You and the boys are invited to party with us. But you have to bring your own booz, own snacs, own smokes, own women. You're not allowed to come in my house, in fact, stay out of my yard - the sidewalk is as good a pary place as any. You're not allowed to mingle with the rest of the guests. If you do I'll sue you. Let's look at the pattern. And this is in general terms, not just this case. A company figures someting out, patents it, then sues everybody who does the same thing (or creates product that can talk to this invention). Why? Greed. That's why. Why don't they instead first prove that the technology is their invention, then notify anyone who might be violating their rights, and offer a chance to work out a solution - licence the technology. That way, you get a more permanent revenue stream. So, exactly how many friends does SCO have these days? If they had proven their ownership of the code in the linux kernel first, and then, in a friendly manner, came with the licencing sceme, their business would have been booming now. But noooo. They they want it all and they want it NOW!

Canada? Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, this case is being brought in Canada, where the defense needs to prove its case.

Population of Canada: 35 million
Population of the United States: 293 million
Population of Europian Union: 380 million

So, assuming that Cisco had to stop selling in Canada and instead sold in just the United States and Europe (ignoring Asia, Australia, etc., entirely), their sales would decrease by less than 5% (35/708). Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to just ignore this lawsuit, and in the meantime continue selling in Canada? If the government eventually forces them to stop, it'd really be no particularly big loss, except to Canada--who would no longer have access to Cisco technology. Which would therefore make the government unlikely to stop Cisco from selling there. Seems like Cisco holds all the cards, here.

Re:Canada? Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, assuming that Cisco had to stop selling in Canada and instead sold in just the United States and Europe (ignoring Asia, Australia, etc., entirely), their sales would decrease by less than 5% (35/708)

Well, a pop. of 35 mil. (Canada) is basically equivalent to California (33 mil.). But California has a Gross State Product of $1.4 Trillian (source), whereas Canada's was only $960 billion (source). So it'd probably be a sales hit of even less than 5%.

Re:Cisco's Patent

[femto]

I've just had a look at Wi-LANs patents. It's interesting to note that Fattouche and Zaghloul are both serious researchers, not lawyers, so it is unlikely that their patents were speculative. In my opinion, this is not a case of extortion.

This will be an interesting battle to watch! I think it is unlikely that either patent will be eliminated due to lack of merit. Rather it will be genuine prior art claims that win the day.

BTW. I'm not employed by either party anymore.

Why bother with canada?

[autopr0n]

If these guys win in Canada, it won't affect the US products, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Cisco will still be able to sell products in the US even if Wi-Lan wins.

Canada - Game Theory?

[NigritudeUltramarine]

Although I can see how someone might think the parent post was a troll, it does present a somewhat reasonable strategy, from a game theory point of view, for Cisco ... basically a Grim Trigger strategy. Cisco threatens the Canadian government that they'll pull out of their market entirely if they don't cooperate with them. Cisco doesn't have much to lose, but Canada has a LOT to lose.

Re:exactly!

[supersandra]

Which is, of course, what patents are really about. Very good point.

Copyrights would be more of a "take your house and use it as my own" deal, yes?

I'm always torn on patents; the idea is good but the system is flawed. People can get patents for very stupid or common things. However, if you have a really great and original idea, it also seems like you ought to be able to make money off of it without a bunch of copycats stomping you out of business. At least for an appropriate period of time, at least.

Not just Wi-Fi!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh oh, looking around my house, what doesn't use this standard in some way? OFDM or varitations like COFDM are used in counless things, the DVB-T digital TV standard, 3G phones (W-CDMA), ADSL, DAB digital radio, DRM digital radio, DECT cordless phones, HomePlug adapters, HomePNA and various other bespoke standard I can't recall.

OFDM was actually invented by the US military as a set up from frequency hopping, in the 80's the France Telecom research labs spent a lot of time developing it into COFDM.

Different for civil and criminal.

[dj245]

At first I thought in Canada you were guilty until proven innocent. But if my short Canadian incarceration has taught me nothing, I learned that they have very different procedures for civil and criminal proceedings. I can't come up with the proper google keywords to get a proper legal document, but if a Canadian says they have innocent until proven guilty then who am I to argue.

I was found innocent of weapons smuggling BTW.

Re:They Should Not Be Allowed To Inforce This

[yeremein]

Isn't this enough to invoke the submarine patent protection? By admitting that they did not enforce the patent when they knew there were infinging users, maybe their patent is not enforceable.

Is there such a thing as submarine patent protection? There certainly should be, but I was under the impression that patents, unlike trademarks, do not have to be rigorously enforced to be enforceable.

Company Admits Wiaiting for Popularity

[Bruha]

The company claims "Without our OFDM patents, there would be no 802.11a/g," he said. "We didn't enforce these patents sooner, because we didn't want to slow down development in the market. But now that the technologies are firmly established, we feel we must protect our intellectual property."

http://news.com.com/Cisco+the+target+of+wireless +l awsuit/2100-7351_3-5245505.html?tag=nefd.top

Re:Huh?

[.no.gov]

Yes. I live in Canada. This is true. You are GUILTY until proven innocent. The GRC Corporation enforces this with their many stakeholders, including Microsoft and Sun Java Systems as some of the larger ones.

Re:Huh?

[RoTNCoRE]

I should point out it doesn't work out that way with criminal law...this is a civil case.