Slashdot Mirror
New Patent Suit Threatens Bluetooth Standard
Aditi.Tuteja writes "A U.S. research institute has sued Nokia, Samsung Electronics and Matsushita-owned Panasonic for violating a patent on Bluetooth technology, potentially putting the free wireless standard at risk. The Washington Research Foundation, which markets technology from the University of Washington, is seeking damages from the three mobile-phone makers for using a radio frequency receiver technology without paying royalties. From the article: 'According to the lawsuit, Bluetooth-based computers, cell phones and headsets made by the companies have violated four patents for research done in the mid-1990s by Edwin Suominen when he was a student at the University of Washington. All four patents are now licensed by the Washington Research Foundation. The foundation's lead counsel on the case, Steven Lisa, said the court filing followed two years of informal attempts to resolve the issue with the major players in the industry.'"
you can also read about it here!
I was under the impression that Bluetooth was an open standard, and it looks like the suits involve specific chipsets used by the companies in question, not the standard as a whole.
Hello!
I am new to this Slashdot thing. I have trouble understanding this... Wasn't this story posted before? It's like the same story posted twice.What's the word for it? Doop?
We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us
That's impossible. We're already six days into the year. There's no way slashdot could go six days without a dupe.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If you google him, you will find that Edwin Suominen is a patent agent who studied RF at university and assigned some patents there. Despite his name (Suominen), he doesn't seem to have any Finnish connection (Suomi, is the Finnish name for themselves). I had wondered at first whether he had any connection to another well known Finnish company which was heavily involved in the original research. What is unusual is that he seems to have acquired a number of patents (about 4) whilst studying as an undergraduate at University.
The thing is that the original BT work done in Finland/Sweden (mostly the latter) was done some time ago. It has taken a very long time to catch on in the US but started appearing in the mid nineties. Simple implementations appeared a little later and it may be interesting to look at the history of this patent against when the first single chip implmentation appeared (about 98). It could well be that some existing technology leaked.
See my journal, I write things there
Ericsson, the company that played the biggest part in the development of Bluetooth is not even mentioned in the suit. So this is probably something about a way of implementing a certain part of the standard, and not the whole standard itself. To say that this is endangering bluetooth as technology is a bit exagerating.
Too long, too many words. No way anybody is going to wade through all that. Is there some explanation with cartoons or a little singing dinosaur or someth...oooh shiny!?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
The earliest of Mr Suominen's patents assigner to the University of Washington was filed in 1996, but wasn't granted until 1999. Of the four of Mr Suominen's patents assigned to the University of Washington, only one was filed before the formation of the Bluetooth consortium, and none of them were issued until after. It is entirely possible that Ericsson (or one of the other original Bluetooth founders) would have IP that predates the 1998 formation of the consortium.
The fact that the filing is only against three handset manufacturers, all of which have Bluetooth chipsets manufactured by CSR PLC in the UK, shows that this isn't an attack on Bluetooth, just one method of its implementation. Oddly enough, the lawsuit is going after the handset manufacturers and not the chipmaker. This just shows that they are only after money, and to rustle up some FUD regarding non-Broadcom chipsets. This is reinforced comments from Rob Enderle (whose previous clients include Microsoft and SCO): "Defendants would be quick to settle if it appeared the case was immediately threatening their product lines".
Undoubtedly, the defense would most likely claim Laches against any possible injunction. It is also highly likely that other memebers of the Bluetooth consortium would leverage their IP to prove prior art. It seems Washington Research Foundation and Mr Suominen have quite a large uphill battle in their hands.
I don't think this case will last very long, and even if they were successful, I'm sure Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic would just move to a different chipset in the future.
When somebody patents the dupe, Slashdot will owe billions in licensing fees...
If a large corporation delays filing a complant until *after* the technology has been adopted and is in wide use "oh, gee, you owe us money" i think they should lose most their rights for compensation. ( notice i said most, not all )
They knew it was in violation in the beginning, they should have spoke up long ago.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I say most, as sometimes they are honestly missed until its too late, especially when you are talking *small* companies or private individuals. I would not want to start a bad precedent where the little guys get screwed.
But we do agree there should be some penalty for people waiting to let others do the dirty work, then profit off that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----