Slashdot Mirror


Patent Troll Attacks Cable, Digital TV Standards

DavidGarganta writes "A patent troll firm in suburban Philadelphia, Rembrandt IP Management, is trying to force large cable operators and major broadcasters to pay substantial license fees on the transmission of digital TV signals and Internet services. The firm is apparently trying to get 0.5% of all revenues from services that supposedly infringe on the patents. The targeted companies include ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Charter and Cablevision. According to MultiChannel News, Rembrandt's assault is especially aggressive, even for a patent troll: 'It is attacking two key technology standards used by the cable and broadcast industries, CableLabs' DOCSIS and the Advanced Television Systems Committee's digital-TV spec. "If they're successful, this could affect everything from the cost of cable service to the price of TVs," said the attorney close to the litigation, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.'"

8 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Ahhh by cloakable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aren't patents wonderful? Spreading innovation everywhere!

    --
    No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Re:Old news now? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO isn't a patent troll. SCO does have a business that is not based on suing others for patent infringement, and that's why they are in so much trouble now: countersuits. A patent troll is immune to being sued because it does not distribute anything, it just makes money through royalties and lawsuits, and so can't really be sued for anything. It is actually a very dangerous entity, because it has nothing to lose.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Innovation by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Isn't it remarkable how patents stimulate innovative litigation? Think of the tragedy if we just junked the whole nutty system. Imagine the packs of feral, unemployed lawyers roaming the streets attacking innocents.

    Sooner or later, we'll save ourselves untold trouble if we vastly scale back the notion of Intellectual (imaginary) property to something relatively sensible.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  5. opened a can by phrostie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    just look at the list of companies.
    they may not get along with each other, but the last thing you want to do is force them to unite against a common enemy.

    i think they just opened a can of woop-ass.

  6. Re:What the hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I think all this patent troll stuff is bullshit, it is worth pointing out that if I accept your last statement, patent trolls ARE providing a service. By purchasing patents, these patent trolls provide a market for patents which puts money in the hands of small time inventors, who don't have the resources to commercialize their inventions. Without a patent market, it would be more difficult for small inventors to get paid. (Inventors inside companies already have R&D resources to convert patents to products.)

    The fact that these companies didn't invent the idea does not negate their claim. As long as we treat ideas as property, then people should be free to buy and sell that property. You can own your TV despite having not created it. You exchanged money for it in a mutually agreeable transaction.

    The real problem is the patent itself, not the troll. The troll just highlights the underlying problem. If every patent were as efficiently enforced as the few that fall into the hands of patent trolls, commerce would grind to a halt, and we would have to do something about it.

  7. Re:What the hell... by baboo_jackal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By purchasing patents, these patent trolls provide a market for patents which puts money in the hands of small time inventors, who don't have the resources to commercialize their inventions.
    That's an interesting take on patent trolls. But it's kind of like a guitar player selling his guitar to pay for a kick-ass amp... Whoops.

    Without a patent market, it would be more difficult for small inventors to get paid.
    How about this instead? Just make and sell your damn invention. If it's that good, I should think you'd have no problem. Want to sell out, but just a little? OK, how about selling exclusive licensing rights to a bigger company for royalties? I don't know. It seems to me that there are a *lot* of other ways small inventors can profit from a good idea that *don't* include selling the exclusive rights to create their widget to a company who intends to not make the widget and just sue others who do.

    Maybe this is an oversimplification, but if you don't intend to make the damn thing you want to buy the patent to, you shouldn't be allowed to buy it in the first place.
  8. Re:The patent doesn't generate Ad revenue... by Bigglare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone keeps talking about redesigning patent laws to stop this. The federal government has the right to take patents away for the public good. For example if there was a patent on say Flu vaccinations, and the company wasnt producing enough or charging too much. The government can take that away and have other people manufacture the vaccine. Just write your senator and representatives and have them void these patents on the grounds they infringe and hamper on a standard mandated by congress for broadcasting. Congress requires that broadcasters use this standard, it was one of several options they considered. They chose the ATSC format and therefore should convert the patents to Public Domain or take the patent away as emminent domain.