Slashdot Mirror
22 Companies Sued Over Wi-Fi Patents
Newer Guy writes "Wi-LAN, another patent holding company, has sued 22 companies that make or sell wireless routers. Defendants include Apple. Atheros, Belkin, Best Buy, Buffalo, Dell, HP, Intel, and Lenovo. Wi-LAN has a portfolio of more than 280 issued or pending patents." Of course the two patent suits were filed in Marshall, Texas.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe if enough scumbag IP holding companies extort enough money out of big corporations, those corporations will lobby congress to get the patent laws changed.
Cause it sure looks like neither the best interests of the country and its citizens, nor general sanity are enough to get them to do anything. Here's hoping there's enough pressure from this to get some corruption going in our favor.
And, yes, I know that's naive.
I'm hesitant to ask if this vaguery was something the article introduced (due to lack of info) or if this is another case of "we won't tell you what you're infringing, but trust us that you are".
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
Patents.... Legalized Extortion for the 21's century.
How much more of this do we haveto have before everyone in big business realizes that it's all a bad idea?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The basic idea behind a patent is to allow the patent holder "shelter time" to develop, market, sell, and profit from their new inventions.
How can a company claim damages if they haven't done the above? Patents are what they are, but it strikes me as just silly - you might be in violation of the patent, but how can you, as the patent holder, claim damages without any proof that loss has occurred?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I see that another poster has pointed out that they sued Cisco 3 years ago. So, why don't Reuters and the other wire services ever dig up those details on their own? Shouldn't they try to answer some of the obvious questions, rather than just post a notice that the lawsuit exists?
I wish we had journalists instead of just reporters.
Because articles written by journalists are complex and potentially difficult to read! That could alienate a sizable part of your potential audience!
Besides, its much easier to produce "to catch a predator" over and over again, then pass it off as journalism, than it is to convince people that real news stories can't be contained in simple, bite-sized nuggets.
Specifically, require all patent related cases to route through a centralized system in washington D.C.
Multiple courthouses/justices are fine, even keep the status quo with their method of appointment, but the cases (primary and appeals) filed should be randomly assigned to a given judge's court.
Removing the ability of troll companies to shop for particularly corrupt or incompetent forums should help reign in part of the problem and bring some regularity or balance to the overall system.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
What the patents actually are of, and when they were filed. Some friends and I setup and brainstormed in late 97 and early 98 about the possibility of wireless networking using the 900 MHz and the 2.4 GHz range. I saw the first consumer devices come out around 2000 or so. If I have documentation of this, and the patent was filed later, I wonder if I can file a prior art thing?
The basic idea behind a patent is to allow the patent holder "shelter time" to develop, market, sell, and profit from their new inventions.
It is an error to think that the patent owner has to build something. When the patent system was established it was understood that some farmer or garage mechanic may make the big intellectual break through and not have the money to manufacture the gizmo. The "shelter time" was not only to develop, market, sell, and profit. It was also intended to allow investors to seek financing for a new venture or to license the invention to existing manufacturers.
How can a company claim damages if they haven't done the above? Patents are what they are, but it strikes me as just silly - you might be in violation of the patent, but how can you, as the patent holder, claim damages without any proof that loss has occurred?
The fact that an unlicensed party sold a product based upon your patent is inherently a loss. There is a loss in terms of the opportunity to make such a sale yourself, a loss in terms of a licensing fee, a loss in terms of diminished value to those you are currently negotiating licenses with, etc.
The license holders have nothing to add to the marketplace and so their not interested in cross licenses. They just want the money now, which stifles invention and progress.
There is nothing inherently wrong with license holders. They provide one valid method for an investor to cash out on the invention. The fact that the system is currently abused does not mean we should throw it out. Should we get rid of email because there is spam? A firm that specializes in license holding for a particular technology or industry can be a useful "marketplace" for companies seeking to license innovations. Here is one example of a good license holder, the University of California. The University holds numerous patents with no intention to do anything more than license the invention. The licensing fees vary depending on the organization, small local firms are treated more favorably than international conglomerates, firms that employ or support faculty or students are treated more favorably, venture capitalists find the University's published list of available licenses a good source of ideas for new firms. University representatives that I have spoken with have mentioned that they know numerous serial entrepreneurs who come to them to find an interesting patent, develop a company, sell it, and return to repeat the cycle. Also, IIRC, the University gets 50% of the licensing fees, the faculty/student inventor gets around 30%, and his/her department gets the remainder.
Some day soon, corporations will realize that they have to unite and collaborate better. I am glad that this is happening, Maybe this will be a unifying force that will promote cooperations like Open Invention Network and fight enemies like Microsoft, NTP and this little bugger.
There should be patent free open standards like IP that everyone can use and build on. What if google had to pay a fraction of a cent for every IP packet as royalty. Would it have taken off in it's infancy. Hell, would internet taken off ?
This is exactly the problem with patents:
I am an inventor, it is too expensive for me to patent my ideas, thus the only patents that I have, have been created during employment. Most all of the people doing the "inventing" on their own find it difficult or impossible to patent.
large corporations and well funded universities spend millions of dollars a year patenting trivial or even not-so-trivial techniques. ("Not so trivial" is still not "non-obvious")
Patents only protect big business from small business, and make competition difficult.
How melodramatic. That's their job, that's what they're paid for.
Universities, and individual academics, who double dip and come up with bullshit excuses about why they should be able to retain the benefits of taxpayer funded work should be given a swift boot up the backside.
You want to keep the work? YOU PAY FOR IT.
---
The name "Copy Right" is incorrect. It's really "Copy Control Privilege". "Patent" is incorrect. It's really "Idea Control Privilege".
Universities, and individual academics, who double dip and come up with bullshit excuses about why they should be able to retain the benefits of taxpayer funded work should be given a swift boot up the backside.
You want to keep the work? YOU PAY FOR IT. Maybe, you really have to examine their contracts. If it does not outline provisions for assigning any byproducts of their work to the government then in fact it's not part of their job. Grants fund these academic researchers and different grants come with different strings. This might be private or public funding. There is no guarantee it's your tax dollars. A part of his salary is likely tax dollars but that is for "teaching" services. Grants come with their own strings but if you wish you can push for public money to come with additional strings. Remember universities do take a cut already.
Also funders often fund for no other reason then the prestige of having their name attached and because some of them must spend that endowment (Carnegie/Smithsonian/etc..). Public funders tend to fund for a variety of different reasons most linking back to politics. A requirement to kick back revenue from devices might make academic research even less attractive to talent.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."