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.

Comments

And again

[Opportunist]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.

Re:And again

[Lawmeister]

Or, if you are very confident in your patents and ability to successfully sue, go after the market leader so that when you win, the rest of the market will fall into line without much sabre rattling.

Cisco's payment and licencing sends a very strong message to those faced with this new series of suits.

Good!

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Re:Good!

[kebes]

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. Only if those big corporations are losing more money to patent trolls than they are gaining through their own patent litigation (or via the market exclusion that their patents afford them). The problem is that the big companies generally benefit from the current patent system overall, even if sometimes they have to pay some small troll.

Consider the Vonage situation. This company is being sued by all the large incumbents. The established companies have a stake in keeping patents strong, since they are able to use this legal system to shut down competition. Having to occasionally pay some other company for a patent they neglected to get first is just "the cost of doing business."

I, too, wish that companies would lobby for a sane patent system. But, the problem is that even if big companies lose some money to frivolous patents, they are still sufficiently in control of the system that they win even more money from their own frivolous patents. Waiting for big business to save us from this mess is a mistake.

You have to love it...

[Lumpy]

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?

Missing the point of patents

[mcrbids]

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?

Re:Missing the point of patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic idea behind a patent is to allow the patent holder "shelter time" to develop, market, sell, and profit from their new inventions. The problem, of course, is that the current patent system doesn't make clear that the intention of granting a patent is to allow the technology to be developed.

Nowadays, getting a patent solely to prevent your competition from developing it is considered a valid reason (even though it is the exact opposite of what was intended with the system). In fact, companies get patents for all kinds of reasons (to stifle competition, as part of a defensive war chest, to cover every contingency for future products, etc.) and very few of them actually have to do with the original intent of patents: to encourage innovation (and publication of the details of new inventions).

Until patent law distinguishes between all these different cases, companies will continue to abuse it.

Re:Missing the point of patents

[Deag]

Does this not validate them somewhat though? If they invented it, and then produced it, but were undercut by others using their inventions, don't they have a point?

Re:Who's missing?

[644bd346996]

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.

Re:Who's missing?

[Knara]

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.

easy first step to reform, ban "Forum Shopping"

[plasmacutter]

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.

I wonder....

[gravis777]

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?

License holders are a good thing ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.