Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Shuts Down Pay As You Go Wireless
self assembled struc writes "BCGI has been found guilty of infringing on pay-as-you-go wireless patents owned by Freedom Wireless. This means that cellular providers who use BCGI pay-as-you-go billing systems must immediately stop selling new service. For the next 90 days, as they wind down their service, they will have to pay Freedom Wireless 2.5 cents per airtime minute used PER CUSTOMER. This heralds a farewell to Cingular's Go Phone and Sprint-Nextel's Boost services, both powered by BCGI."
For wireless dial-up access, and I haven't noticed any
Lets hang our heads in shame.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Looks like they'll be paying as they go! Hahahahaha
I guess the name "Freedom Wireless" is an ironic choice.
Furthermore there's the issue of all those people who will be out of a phone, possible their only one. I'm sure they won't be getting a sweet deal switching over to the patent-holding company - Shooting the competition in the back of the head is a perfect way to clear the path to raised prices for consumers forced to switch.
It's a shame that laws originally intended to protect individuals or the little guys get turned into legal feeding grounds that do nothing but hurt the consumer and the diversity of the marketplace.
I remember reading about this case a few weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal. The article was entitled "Patent litigants pose growing threat to business."
The first paragraph brought to light one of Freedom Wireless' founder's criminal past (it involved stolen cars) as well as the fact that the founders had previously gone after GTE for similar issues (alleging stolen trade secret). GTE ended up getting paid $90,000 in legal fees, a statement that GTE had never stolen a trade secret, and a promise never to sue GTE again.
Fast forward a few years. Freedom Wireless currently does nothing but patent ligitation. These men are patent trolls.
The Wall Street Journal charges for their archives, but the full text of the same article is available here.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Does this mean I'm screwed as well?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
From the summary: "This heralds a farewell to Cingular's Go Phone and Sprint-Nextel's Boost services, both powered by BCGI."
In regards to Cingular, not exactly.
Cingular has two forms of prepaid service (GoPhone).
One is 'Pick-Your-Plan'. You have a reoccuring monthly charge on your credit or debit card which gives you a monthly allowence for service.
The other is 'Pay-As-You-Go'. You buy a prepaid card off the rack, and use that to make your calls on your cell. As you use it up, you replace the card. That's the part that will be affected by this ruling.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
Although this is immediately disgusting, in the not-so-long-run this might end up being a good thing, this is putting a kink in Sprint/Verison and Cingular's (the big mean companies with nearly inexhaustible legal resources) business model, who will likely lash out against it. If all goes well for them, it will end up creating a substantial precedent against this kind of business-method patent, which would inadvertently improve the patent law situation in the U.S., if we're lucky it might even catalyze a wider reform.
I haven't seen the patent first hand, but often something obvious now, wasn't at that time. If it were then why wasn't someone else doing it already.
I can list many examples of this. The mouse, keyboard, screens, printers, windowing environment, The Internet, an Operating system and even a CPU and the IC chips, were at the time major conceptual steps forward.
I can't tell you how hard it was to explain what the Internet or even a Network was to people in 1983, they just couldn't grasp it.
With patents if someone has been doing something then a patent gets filed by another person at later date, then the group getting sued must try to show that, if they can the patent holder will have to pay like multiple damages and costs.
So as a patent holder you never want to go to court with a weak patent.
But in practice, most people loose their nerve at the first letter from a patent holder, even if its a weak patent that wouldn't hold up.
As a result many people end up paying royalties or giving up without a fight, when they really would win and have that patent tossed out.
I have come to realize much of patent law is a poker game.
For a large company like Microsoft they look at the strength of a patent and the value of the company holding it and decide is it cheaper to pay or infringe. And same in reverse, even if a patent isn't worth the paper it's written on, if the company they sue can't afford to challenge it, then they win.
AT&T did this to many companies they felt were competition, file dozens of bogus suite against one company, from many little companies they control, and drive the small players out of business while leaving there name out of it.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso