Slashdot Mirror
Intermec Claims RFID is Proprietary
seeks2know writes "Line56.com reports that Intermec is claiming patents on RFID chips, readers, and tags. They have launched their first lawsuit against Matrics. They seek to sell licenses to all RFID manufacturers. Erik Michielsen of ABI Research states '...this definitely clouds the UHF Generation 2 standards discussions and is fueling considerable animosity in the industry.'
Interestingly, the patents that Intermec is claiming were acquired in their acquisition of IBM's RFID laboratory in December, 1997. Another case of a submarine patent strategy?"
the evil of patents for good. Hmm, I think my head might explode.
That's not the way to handle a submarine patent. Everyone knows what you're SUPPOSED to do is wait until every large and small company is using RFID and become totally dependant on it. THEN you hit them with the licensing and lawsuits. How do you expect to make any money if you stifle this before it gets really big. Bad Intermec! Bad dog!
Let the litigation begin!
Maybe this will delay RFID rollouts untill some of the privacy issues are fixed?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It is quite difficult to believe that IBM, the warehouse of over 10,000 patents sells a new industry in a sell-off. If they have the patents for RFID, I doubt they swindled it from IBM.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
This is great. Even though submarine patents are not a good thing (my opinion) here we win either way. Many companies are annoyed by the patent on something they thought was an open standard, and RFID tag adoption is hindered.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
" Hmm, I think my head might explode."
Sorry. I have a patent on that. Pay up, then blow up.
I wonder when Wal-Mart wil step into this fray and slap the combatants until all they can see is little yellow smiley faces. Wal-Mart seems pretty serious about RFID and won't be happy if the vendors start squabbling over IP rights.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Hey, 2 wrongs really DO make a right.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The government agency I work at uses RFID for security! These guys are terrorists.
If this patent is valid, and Intermec raises the license fees high enough, it could kill RFID before the technology has really come into its own. What side will CASPIAN come down on? Will IBM stand idly by and let this happen? Will other tinfoil-hat-wearing consumer groups seize on this patent, or try to buy it outright to effectively halt the implementation of RFID?
This has the potential to fracture EFF and PubPat too, seeing as the privacy nuts will be all for anything that makes it harder or more expensive for RFID to become ubiquitous, but this sounds like a job for PubPat (or some other private entitiy) to investigate, to protect the very real benefits that RFID will bring to supply chain management.
or will this be a case where the Feds stand up to fight against a technology patent, now that the DOD has declared that all if its suppliers must use RFID by Jan 1 2005? Can the government claim eminent domain over patents or other IP? This page seems to address the question, but doesn't give me a clear enough picture of the consequences for suppliers when government takes an "eminent domain" license... and it kind of leaves me thinking that if Intermec sues the goverment, and the patent isn't invalidated, taxpayers will be left holding the bag twice.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
If anyone is interested, here is a list of the Intermec's patents that contain the term "RFID". Posted anonymously to not seem to much like a karma whore. Enjoy.
Now someone can place a toll boothe for the use of an international standard, and despite the fact they probably did not contribute to that, then do you blame them for doing so?
Okay, this is just a hobby horse of mine, so excuse me while I gallop around for a while. Please note that I'm not accusing you of making this mistake, it's just one possible reading of your statement. I've seen this problem before on /., and you brought it up, so....
When a portfolio company purchases patents from an R&D company they are contributing. In a very similar vein to putting up cash for research.
See, you do research and it costs money. One of the ways you can defray the cost of research that doesn't lead to where you're going (dead end for your purposes) is to sell what you've got. Hopefully it will cover your expenses, and you'll be no worse for wear, and can continue your research.
If there was no one willing to buy your dead end, you would have to eat the cost - ie lose the investment. This makes people who would invest in you nervous, and makes them stick to mainstream research. It also makes it a much bigger risk to sink your own money into your research, as you can get stuck halfway, and that sucks.
Now, these patent portfolio groups buy these patents in the hope that some of them will be useful or salable in turn, just like investing in real estate. These houses often drive further development, in fact, as they want people to use their tech so they try to introduce people to it.
Many ideas and well-developed inventions would go completely unknown if not for people pushing them.
As for the law suit part of things...if they're filing a patent suit, then things are serious. I happen to know that patent lawsuits start in the $0.5 million range to prosecute, and then they start getting expensive. And it may be years before you see anything.
Now, caveat: when the patent is over something that was obvious when it was invented, or is on an idea rather than an implementation, I'm with you: it's stupid, and it should be invalidated.
My point is that purchasing a patent is contributing to it.
A submarine patent is where you keep the patent in it's application phase, then at some later point, after being rejected several times and requesting re-examininations, adding specifics based on the current state of the market. Then you get to see how an industry shapes up, but you still get the benefit of the early patent applicaiton date.
Patents are good for 20 years from the date of applcation now, an attempt to keep submarine patents from getting too out of hand.
One other FYI, you generally only have about 6 years after you find out someone is infringing on your patent to begin litigation over the infringment. To just sit on it for more than 6 years exposes you to defenses of laches.
But things like this make me think that patents should be treated like trademarks, and if there is sufficient prior cases in which you did not defend your patent when you rightly should have, you lose the rights to the exclusivity that the patent would have otherwise offered.
A nice idea, but not without flaws. For example, what if you make a really great new type of microchip which allows for ten times the current density of circuits. Are you going to have to purchase every electronic product and put it under a microscope to determine whether or not it's infringing so that you don't lose your rights?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I had a meeting today with reps from NCR, who hope to be a big reseller/implementer of RFID solutions, and the salesman basically said that, yes, the first $50,000 you spend will be wasted.
The (economic) reason for this is that the technology is seriously underdeveloped and encumbered by IP claims just like this. But that's not stopping Walmart, Target, and a host of others from requiring manufacturers to participate in pilot programs to force manufacturers and retailers to implement the technology and work out the bugs. Walmart is requiring its top 10 vendors to ship all product to one of its DCs with RFID labels on cases and pallets this January; Target is requiring the same thing for selected vendors by July 2005.
So companies like my employer will have to spend $5-10,000/printer, and $0.50/label (on products we sell for $10), which is pure expense for us, for printers that will need to be replaced in a year to handle new standards, and labels that fail 20% of the time. Oh, and the fastest printing rate they've got is 2-4 inches/minute, which is half what we print at now.
The only way we can hope to recover these expenses (since retailers laugh at us when we say that we need to raise prices to cover expenses they're forcing us to incur) is to start transitioning our own inventory management system to RFID in order to improve efficiency and save money.
Was it this bad when Walmart forced the adoption of UPCs on everyone?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Yes, but this overlooks the real reason that Intermec is suing now: the desire to influence the standards process. You see, at the moment there are two competing standards candidates for the next generation of RFID chips. One comes from Intermec/Philips/TI, and the other from Matrics/Alien Technologies. The side that wins will profit hugely (many millions) because they'll have a faster time to market with their products. Big stuff.
I have no idea if Intermec plans to ride this lawsuit to the end, or if they're just using it as leverage to get their way in the standards process. It's possible that a graceful concession by the other side will see this thing go away, and Intermec graciously agree not to prosecute the suit. Or they may be in it for the long haul. Either way, they've decided to break out the big guns and they obviously think it will be worth it in the end.
I would agree with you with that and most of what you say.
However, where it goes wrong is where these types of patents are submarine patents, and the owners (or purchasers) keep quiet and allow international standards to build around the concepts, and then attack companies complying to those standards.
In those cases, the research and development has been done by others as well as the patent holders (or the guys who the holders purchased it from), and all that is happening there is pure profiteering.
I do not know enough about RFID if the scenario here is like that, so maybe my post was over the top, but as they seem to have patented a standard, so it would not surprise me if it were.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
Why didn't the RFID industry do a thorough patent search BEFORE they put so much effort into commercialising the technology? If the patent in question so obviously covers the majority of inventive steps involved in the RFID process then a search would have warned them of potential patent breach. If the patent is quite obscure and not directly relevant to the RFID process then applications should have been made on behalf of the indsutry group to cover this simply as a means to stop any one company from trying to claim ownership.
If only companies and such industries learned from such obvious mistakes made in the past then there wouldn't be all this whinging about how the patent system is broken. I am an inventor myself. I always do thorough patent searches before even contemplating filing. I know how difficult it is to get a great idea to commercialisation even if deep pockets are available. Because of this, I don't think it is fair to blame people that own the IP for wanting to get their dues when that invention makes it to market, whether it be by their own hand or not. Although, I do agree that the issue gets quite contentious when large companies, as opposed to the little guys, do this with submarine patents. But then again, the groups commercialising the tech should have done a thorough SEARCH!
ogglelog
This is not a case of using "submarine patent strategy". Submarining requires that the patentee drag out the process over several years by filing continuation after continuation. Then allowing the submarine to surface just before attempting litigation. Although the parent maybe published, it is hard for other inventors to know what is patented because new claims can be introduced in the children (which are unpublished) that automatically claim the priority of the parent patent.
c leview/979 /1/1/
l
Thus this is not a case of submarining because:
1) All continuations filed have been abandoned or published (granted) couple years ago.
2) All patents involved have been granted within the last 6 or so years. No way to hide any claims.
The patents invoved are listed in this RFID journal article.
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/arti
And if you don't believe me you can always look up the status data here:
http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/home.p
My initial instincts says something is fishy, especially since EPC global members agree to certain terms on entering the group (offering reasonable licenses or technology royalty free to promote RFID.) Unfortunately, if you read both articles, you will see this has the potential to screw with the standards (especially UHF Gen 2) that EPC Global and its members have been working hard to come out with.
Whats even fishier is that Intermec has representatives on the EPC Global HAG. Hmm why does this sound familiar?
All pharmaceutical companies. The cost to develop a single drug, from initial research through final FDA testing, averages slightly under $1 billion. Those costs simply cannot be recouped if you're immediately competing against generics from companies that didn't have to pay for the research or testing.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
RFID is not automatically evil!
Tools can be used for bad or for good. RFID is a tool. It can be used for bad (privacy invasion) or good: EZ-pass, speedpass, streamlining warehouse/retail operation, and applications we haven't even thought of yet...
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of automatic rabid bitching anytime this technology is brought up?
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.