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: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!

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.

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.