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.
Another story more notable for what's missing than for what's included.
Cisco (who also owns Linksys) is missing from the list of companies, despite being one of the biggest players in the wi-fi market. If they have already licensed the patents in question, that is a very important detail that should be explored.
On the other hand, if Cisco has also been ignoring those patents, and the patent troll in question is not attacking Cisco, there is probably a very interesting reason.
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.
They sued Cisco 3 years ago.
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.
Wi-LAN was an early innovator in the field of wireless stuff. They weren't formed as a patent holding company. Unfortunately, they couldn't compete in the post 802.11 market, and slowly withered away. They were part of the team that developed the WiMAX standard, and did a lot of pioneering work with OFDM. A year or so ago, they finally gave up and sold the various pieces of the company off to various other companies... *cough* fujitsu *cough*. Blame them.
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.
If I were the judge I would throw this case out.
The onus of protecting rights should be on the holder of the rights.
The strategy of patent holders must not be to "lay dormant" allowing numerous companies to infringe for a decade, and then when the market reaches critical mass, appear from the shadows with lawsuits.
We've all seen this happen before of course, but in other areas of intellectual property, (Trademarks for example) it is the responsibility to prevent the mark from becoming 'commonly used'. Once it does, a trademark holder can lose the rights to the mark. There are many famous examples of this.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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?
I must confess to being confused by that one. I understand (and abhor patent trolls) suing the manufacturers for not licensing the technology, but the storefront? Just going after someone with deep-pockets, or what? It's not actually a tenant of US law that you, as a seller, have to verify that all your wares are correctly licensed with clear patents/copyrights is it? How could a store ever be sure that all the electronic components in, say, the computers it sells are dispute-free?
For those that are curious, a list of the patents Wi-LAN holds is here:
http://www.wi-lan.com/patents/patents-issued.aspx
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
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.
I must assume that building houses a court very friendly to the patent trolls, probably someone ignorant of technology enough to not recognize obviousness and prior art in the tech sector.
The primary reason is that a few years ago the ED Texas set itself up specifically to be a venue for these kinds of cases. In 2002 there were 32 patent cases in ED Texas. In 2006 there were over 10x that number. They've developed a set of local rules that favor rapid resolution of cases. If you're a smaller patent troll going up against a larger patent holder, you want a speedy resolution. Otherwise, the big patent holder can bleed you dry with motion after motion, and extended discovery. The judges in ED Texas aren't idiots, and from what I've heard, the jurors aren't either.
Still, the combination of local rules and a pro-plaintiff bias add up to a very favorable venue for trolls.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ