Slashdot Mirror
FTC Defends Ethernet From Patent Troll
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The FTC has put a stop to Negotiated Data Solutions, a patent troll that bought a patent on an important part of the Ethernet networking standard and tried to jack up the royalties for licensing it. In a consent decree (pdf), N-Data agreed to continue licensing the patent at the formerly promised rates. 'Whatever the merits of the decision, it shows that the FTC sees the value of standards and will be on the lookout for any behavior that could undermine these standards-setting process. That alone could keep companies honest when they enter the standards process. Standards-setting bodies have also become more sophisticated over the years (after being burned in several high-profile cases), and now do a better job at forcing involved companies to disclose and license patents.' The IEEE voted back in 2002 to make patent letters irrevocable, which could have prevented this, but neglected to make that clause retroactive."
I already have a patent pending on using eletrical signals for any kind of communication!! How dare he steal my thunder!
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Nice to see the FTC moving in a sensible direction. Of course the only reason they did it, was because we are talking Ethernet. If it was some less known standard that a troll way trying to attack, they would let it slide.
Sorry, this was a no contest situation.
With 100M worth of capital you do not go against an industry with turnover in excess of 100s of Billions per year. Most networking gear all the way to 10G is Ethernet now and that industry as the chairman of FTC noted can fend for itself. In fact, based on the FTC decision it surely did.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The patent was written so that it would be a one time fee of $1000. In terms of business costs and licensing fees, that's peanuts.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I think it's about 20 years and then it goes into the public domain, but that isn't the case here. The patent is on one particular part of Ethernet, particularly it's use of autonegotiation of speed and capabilities between different devices. It was adopted in 1994 into the Ethernet standard. Initially the patent deal was set up in such a way that every manufacteurer of Ethernet products had to pay a one time royality fee of 1,000 dollars which is pretty weak.
Why not limit the number of times patent rights can be reassigned?
As set forth in the US Constitution, the purpose of patents is twofold:
1: The temporary monopoly on the invention gives the inventor recompense for the investment made in the invention. In other words, it keeps him/her inventing instead of waiting tables.
2: The limited term of the patent brings the invention into the public domain, to be used as fodder for future inventions.
The whole idea of assignment of your invention rights is simply another way of getting recompense. It's a good idea, because it means you don't have to be a manufacturer and marketer, as well as an inventor. Assignment of rights lets you focus on inventing and not on those other things, if that's your bent.
And maybe reassignment by the first assignee might make sense, too. But by the time patent rights have been sold multiple times, the link back to one of the original functions - to keep the inventors inventing - is so diffuse that it has been lost, IMHO.
The Constitution never intended the patent as a revenue source beyond spurring invention. (Same with copyrights)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
"Why wasnt this patent written so that in X number of years in became extinct and the contents of it went out under the GPL? "
All I can say Wow...
1 A patent is not a software license or a copyright. A patent does have a limited life span.
2. When a patent expires then it becomes totally free. Not free as beer, speech, or the GPL. Free as in public domain free. You can do anything you want with it after it expires.
So all I can say is WOW.....
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Many times it isn't even a true "improvement", just a minor tweak; like dextro-rotating (or levo-rotating) the molecule, or producing a racemic mixture (e.g. Adderal vs. Dexadrine, the aforementioned Prilosec vs. Nexium), or making an extended-release version.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
"every manufacteurer of Ethernet products had to pay a one time royality fee of 1,000 dollars which is pretty weak." Expanding on this, why shouldn't they at least be allowed to increase the original cost of the patent inline with inflation? Measuringworth.com estimates the current value of $1,000 1994 dollars at between $1,290 to $1,865. They have the patent, what value is it if they can't they can't set the royalty fee to whatever they want (within reason)?
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
Because their predecessor in interest, National Semiconductor, agreed to a $1000 license, with no consideration for inflation. Which Negotiated Data Solutions should have known when they bought the parent.
(Geez, "Negotiated Data Solutions" even sounds like the name of a shakedown organization)
Not necessarily a good thing
First, the GP is only a troll is the poster doesn't believe the content of the post, but rather posts just to go against the prevailing sentiment and arouse a reaction.
Second, a phrase like "exploiting the flaws of the system" is quite loaded. Like if someone you like is charged with a crime but not convicted, you might say that person is not guilty. If someone you don't like is in the same situation, you might say, they only got off on a technicality.
I'm not guilty of murder, but only on a technicality. Of course, that technicality is the fact that I haven't killed anyone, or caused the death of anyone, or done anything else covered by the laws that define murder. But that's only a technicality.
If you think the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees is a "flaw of the system" then yes, in this case the company was trying to exploit that flaw. Of course I could say the requirement to release source code is a flaw of the GPL, and anyone trying to get me to release the source of an application based on GPL code I am selling is just a troll exploiting the flaws of the system.
I may hear replies that the requirement to release source code is not a flaw of the GPL, but rather is an intentional aspect of how the GPL works. On the same tip, some might say the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees for use of works covered by the patent, and the right to increase those fees should the patented works prove to be popular, is not a flaw in the system, but part of how patents are intended to work.