Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bluetooth Lawsuit

Posted by samzenpus on from the sue-everyone dept.

Krish writes "The Seattle Times reports that a local Washington state group is suing cellphone makers for patent infringement on bluetooth devices. Research conducted by a University of Washington undergraduate more than a decade ago has become the subject of a lawsuit filed against some of the largest cellphone manufacturers in the world. The suit claims that consumer electronics giant Matsushita and its Panasonic unit, as well as Samsung and Nokia, are infringing on four patents sold under the 'Bluetooth' name."

11 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. how stupid are these people?! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think there should be a certain time limit set on patent infringement cases called "the dumbass period" where after that time has passed, you're a complete dumbass for just realizing the patent infringement then and your case is automatically thrown out. Unless he was stuck in a desert island for the last couple years and just got rescued, he or the group or whatever should stop this pathetic attempt at scamming some money from companies.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:how stupid are these people?! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS?! They wait until the company is huge and has tons of money THEN sue them because they can make the most money off it, aka scamming. DUH, dozens of people have tried to get away with that. Remember Ebay's buy it now option? Oh yeah, I'm sure they just realized Ebay was using it like 4 years later. More like they waited and waited saying "they're not quite rich enough yet" then sued them. It's only a matter of time before someone jumps up and says "Hey, I patented a technique for waiting until an infringing company is rich then suing them" and gets all the scammers' money.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    2. Re:how stupid are these people?! by kjart · · Score: 3, Informative

      I tend to agree with that assessment. In this case, however, it's not the Bluetooth protocol that's infringing, it's the hardware implementation (i.e. the chips) that are apparently infringing. Realizing that said chips were infringing your patents would probably be a non-trivial thing to discover. From the article:

      He said a number of the Bluetooth chipset manufacturers appeared to be infringing on the patent. One company, Irvine, Calif.-based Broadcom, agreed to license the technology. Another company CSR of Cambridge, United Kingdom, did not, Reagh said.

      The second company, CSR, sells their chips to the cell phone makers who are being sued.

    3. Re:how stupid are these people?! by modecx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not fraud as the GP asserts, this is true. However, I think this deal closely mirrors an extortion scheme, as do many other patent cases. Here we have an IEEE standard that is supported by entire industries, and the firm holding the universities' patents has decided to wait nearly a decade after devices using "their" technology have proliferated around the world, with shipments in the millions. You don't think they could have brought this little snag up a little sooner? Face it, they were waiting for the phenomenon to snowball, just so they could do precisely what they're trying to do now--trying to rake in the millions, with little to no effort spent on actually developing a product--which is a difficult and risky venture.

      The fact this sort of bullying is legal does not make it right. In this field, one would need a fleet of patent lawyers to determine if one's invention is unique and non-obvious, and even then, chances are that your lawyer armada isn't exactly right on everything, because patents are purposefully written to obfuscate their meanings and expand their scope. In this way, the system that was designed to promote development of useful technologies has been hobbled by its own virtues. It *should* be illegal to intimidate people with torpedo tactics like this. They're exploiting the system, and the acceptance of these practices have fucked the system over.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  2. the patent by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

    the article was kind of vague. this is the patent in question. Personally, it seems kind of obvious, but that's how it goes.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:the patent by Hirsto · · Score: 3, Informative

      The patent you linked to is a "continuation in part" of patent 6427068 which is a divisional patent of 5937341. This original patent was filed Sept. 13 1996 and granted Aug. 10 1999. The original patent was also titled "Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning methods" which appears to show a very low cost method tuning/conversion/image rejection and digital signal recovery. The DSP techniques described (modified type III Hilbert transform pair) seem to be where the action is but most of what is described appears to be very similar to what I studied in my undergrad Communication Theory coursework 20 years ago on quadrature systems. If they can prove that Blue Tooth infringes on the claims of the 1999 patent and that their patent is valid then they are "in the money". Their patent is probably good as Broadcom has already licensed the patent to avoid damages. Nokia, Samsung and Matsushita probably have big targets on their backs now as their bluetooth vendor refused to license.

  3. Re:Timing of Patent by ThePopeLayton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The patent was filed in 2001 and granted in 2003, however, bluetooth was developed in 1994 and formally announced in 1998. It seems kind of backwards to me that someone would try to patent technology that has been circulating for a few years, let alone that someone would grant said patent.

  4. reminds me of qualcomm by argoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I recall, the US govt paid Qualcomm over 100 million dollars to do R&D on RF technology for military communications. Then just as the technology started to become developed in the market, they patented the shit out of everything to do with CDMA. I always thought that was sort of unfair, after all my tax money paid for that R&D, and even if it didn't - it seemed like there was incentive was already out and that it was going to be invented anyhow,

    1. Re:reminds me of qualcomm by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I recall, the US govt paid Qualcomm over 100 million dollars to do R&D on RF technology for military communications.

      If Qualcomm did the R&D work as part of an open bid contract to develop a product or provide service to the government AND the product or service was indeed provided on time and per the terms of the agreement then I am not against Qualcomm profiting from their work on the contract in future dealings. However, if this money was given as a grant or the product or service was NOT delivered as per the terms of the agreement then Qualcomm has some explaining to do.

      Then just as the technology started to become developed in the market, they patented the shit out of everything to do with CDMA.

      If the entire arrangement was above board (which it probably was not) then there is no problem with this, especially if Qualcomm had language in the contract stating that they had the right to patent any technology that came out of the research (probably in return for granting a perpetual license to the government). However, I am generally against funding research projects with public money (there are too many projects that would want funding) and especially when the project could feasibly be funded with private investment. This is the reason why I voted AGAINST the stem cell research bonds here in California. If the investors feel so poorly about an opportunity that they do not want to risk their own money then why should the public be forced to take that risk? It is also the case, as you have already said, that if the risk DOES pay off then the public gets screwed out of their rightful return on the investment. The same thing goes for airline bailouts and most other forms of corporate charity. If the taxpayers do not share in the rewards then why should we share in the pain when these business ventures fail?

      I always thought that was sort of unfair, after all my tax money paid for that R&D, and even if it didn't - it seemed like there was incentive was already out and that it was going to be invented anyhow.

      It is unfair and if something is really that worthwhile then there usually is enough incentive already out there for private investment to develop it. The few projects that are left (i.e. stem cell research, farm products research, and other bogus or risky projects funded by taxpayers) are usually lemons or very risky (junk bond type investments with high risks and long payoff horizons) and the public gets stuck holding the bag.

  5. Re:Timing of Patent by Utopia · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bluetooth is a protocol it doesn't describe the hardware implementation.
    The said patent seems to be hardware related.

  6. There is. Its called LACHES! by RITMaloney · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is. Its called LACHES!

    http://www.converium.com/2103.asp