Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Bans Some Cellphones For Patent Reasons
runner_one writes "According to the New York Times, A federal agency has banned imports of new cellphones made with Qualcomm semiconductors because the chips violate a patent held by Broadcom. The International Trade Commission said today that the import ban would not apply to mobile phone models that were imported on or before June 7." Update: 06/08 13:05 GMT by KD : Glenn Fleishman notes that Apple's iPhone will be allowed into the country, since it doesn't use any 3G chips. He adds that Apple "might have the most advanced smartphone on the market unless President Bush or his trade representative overturn the ruling (which they have the power to do)."
Play with patent fire and you're going to get burned. Remember Qualcomm suing Nokia?, Qualcomm suing GTE Wireless, Qualcomm suing Maxim, Qualcomm suing Motorolla, Qualcomm suing Ericsson, Qualcomm suing Broadcom?
Everytime a large corporation loses a big case like this, I feel we're a step closer to sane patent reform. Hopefully someone will win a patent against Broadcomm next.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I am wondering how this might effect travelers arriving in the US with such a phone. I would imagine only a vanishingly small minority would have any idea what semiconductors powered their phone. It would certainly be a shock to arrive and have your phone confiscated.
Every time they issue a patent that's later invalidated, they should pay compensation for issuing the patent.
The problem here, has and always will be the over willingness of the patent office to issue patents when the invention preexists but is not documented publicly, or where it's a minor increment of an existing variation. It's in the law that they have to test for obviousness and prior art, but they so narrowly define those terms as to remove the tests.
The free market will fix it, make them pay for their mistakes just like every other professional body.
What is it with Broadcom? This sounds like the same kinda rubbish that is stopping my wireless from working natively in Linux.
Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.
But it's even more complicated than that. It's a "if I had to work on the problem, that's the first thing I would try."
For example, [in recent news...] the Amazon 1-click patent. Since I'm not running a webshop I didn't try to declare that idea as my own. But I think that if I were running a shop I would want to investigate what's the fastest way to get someone to order something and on with their life. I'd probably come up with a 1-click idea too. It just makes sense. The website already knows who you are, where you live, etc. So why would it make sense to fill out a complete order form when you want to buy something?
In this case, because I'm not an "e-shop" owner I didn't think of it. But it would obvious to anyone in the field. I should also like to point out that many people "trade teams" quite often. when I was at AMD it wasn't uncommon to have relatively higher up people from all over shuffle around (e.g. intel to AMD, amd to intel, HP to amd, amd to IBM, etc...). You don't think these people bring ideas in their heads with them?
While I don't know the exact details of the patents, I'd be surprised if they were anything groundbreaking.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
There's also the new (pending?) revisions from SCOTUS on the "obviousness" clause that changes the meaning (I hope) to "if the new 'invention' is simply a combination of existing components that does what you would expect by combining those components, it doesn't count as a patentable invention."
One-click shouldn't be a patent, because it simply chains together existing components in a way that results in the simple sums of functionality. There is nothing "new" there.
A patent on a chip that simply sums together signal detection with wake-up logic to save batteries should also not be patentable, because both of those technologies have been around for a long time.
It's only when the sum of components does not simply result in an obvious function that a patent should be granted. My test would be something like: strip the patent application of the description of what it does and the submitter and give it to a group of engineers in that field. If that small group can't determine what the invention is supposed to do within, say, 8 hours (or some other 'reasonable' time frame), then it can get a patent. Otherwise, no patent.
The problem is that people are now using combinations of preexisting ideas as patents when they shouldn't be allowed. I wouldn't even grant a patent on the optical mouse, because it's an "obvious" combination of an optical motion sensor and a computer pointing device. Now, I might patent something related to how the optical motion sensor works, but only so long as it's not simply a combination of existing components.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Qualcomm has been aggressive in promoting their patent rights. But to say
that they are unique in this field is completely ignoring one side of the story.
Every try to make something in the GSM/UMTS space? You will have about a dozen companies
approach you with their hands out. Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericcson, Motorola, Lucent, Samsung
and several others. CDMA royalties are about 5%, almost all paid to Qualcomm. GSM/UMTS
royalties sum up to about 18%. The only difference is that if you are one of the big guys,
you "cross-license" your patents so that you don't end up actually paying anything. If you
are a new entrant... well, you are out of luck.
What is pissing off the Nokias, Ericcsons and Broadcomms of the world is that in the CDMA space,
they have no patents at all. None. That is because they fought CDMA every step of the way until Qualcomm
demonstrated conclusively that it is a commercially practical technology. Then they
turned around and tried to claim it as their own, and tried to co-opt it by applying it with minor
modifications to the UMTS space.
Actually, I am amazed that Broadcomm is getting away with this. Their sum total of contributions to
the wireless space is close to zero. They have done some work in the wireline world in the early
years, but they have contributed zip, zilch, nada in the development of wireless IP. They are not
even a name in the industry. HOwever, it is possible that they have purchased some IPR of late.
I am quite happy to see cracks in the patent edifice as a whole, but making Qualcomm the villain in
this is not correct. Qualcomm laid many of the foundations for modern wireless communications technology;
Qualcomm corporate R&D is about as close as you can get to how Bell Labs used to be.
Lots of Qualcomm's IPR consists of non-trivial, non-obvious, fundamental contributions to communications
theory. Most other wireless companies, in particular Nokia, Motorola, Ericcson etc have done nothing
fundamental in the past 15 years. They are product companies whose forte consists of taking old technologies
and packaging them in crowd-pleasing form factors, or (in the case of Ericcson), maintaining relationships
with behemoth carriers.
Magnus
Patents try to solve an unsolvable problem today in that they need to be short in duration to minimize the chilling effects, but long to earn their owners cash; broad to be applicable, but narrow to avoid carpet bombing; easy to understand to be of use for others and patent examiners, but obfuscated to prevent information leakage to countries with no patent system and we need a cheap, fast AND thorough patent examination process. Ain't gonna happen.
Enough studies indicate that the only ones actually benefiting from patents in real life (outside purely hypothetical situations like the other replicant gave) are patent attorneys that I'm willing to give it a try without them. Just let the current ones expire and stop granting new ones. We already see less and less patent applications from real entrepreneurs and innovators and more and more applications from patent hoarders so this step should be a no-brainer. Patents do not work like they are supposed to. I'm unsure as to if they ever actually did. For instance, it has been suggested that they delayed the industrial revolution several decades, until James Watt's steam engine patent expired. http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bSn6RfryVEgJ:w
Hell, just look at Switzerland and the Netherlands a hundred years ago - for a period of over 50 years, neither country had a patent system and they flourished. Many large corporations were founded there at the time; Unilever, Syngenta, Philips and Nestlé.
"The two countries relied for their growth not upon exclusive rights but upon high educational standards and technical ability." http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7
Money for nothing, pix for free
Really? How does discovering something again lead to progress? I could re-invent the wheel, or prove that 2+2=4 for independently, but neither would advance the fields of engineering or mathematics. Prohibiting independent discovery is not so much the issue, as dealing with the infringing use. It is the potential prohibition of the infringing use that threatens to hamper the progress of the arts and sciences, not the mere fact that it was rediscovered.
Perhaps the best solution here would be do adopt a mandatory licensing scheme similar to the one used for copyrighted musical works. The only catch here would be determining what a proper royalty would be. Patented inventions are inherently more hard to value then music because their value often comes from their combination with other inventions (patented or unpatented). Songs on the other hand are singular items. This is the biggest problem a mandatory licensing regime faces.
No, lawyers would have a field day with this standard. How do we determine who a "leading expert" is? If it is a question of fact, it goes to the jury, which will result in unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes; i.e., a craps shoot. Try explaining to your average person on the street why theoretical physicist A's interpretation of M-Theory is more correct then theoretical physicist B's interpretation. Alternatively if it is a question of law, the judge decides, this leads to huge legal battles (and costs) as the lawyers argue over A vs. B , and arguably will not produce better or more coherent outcomes then a jury. Patent litigation is already the most expensive form of litigation to pursue, increasing the complexity of litigation helps no one.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...