Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firm Seeks To Ban Mobile Companies' Imports To US

Posted by Soulskill on from the even-silly-patent-claims-are-bigger-in-texas dept.

snydeq writes "Texas-based Saxon Innovations has filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission to bar six companies — including Research in Motion, Palm, and Nokia — from importing handheld devices into the US. At issue are three patents that Saxon purchased in July 2007; a patent for keypad monitor with keypad activity-based activation; a patent for an apparatus and method for disabling interrupt marks in processors or the like; and a patent for a device and method for interprocessor communication by using mailboxes owned by processor devices. Saxon, with five employees, purchased about 180 US patents formerly owned by Advanced Micro Devices or Legerity in 2007, according to its ITC complaint."

49 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you can't innovate, litigate!

    1. Re:You know what they say... by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if you can't litigate, fumigate!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:You know what they say... by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Funny

      "And if you can't litigate, fumigate!"
      And if you can't fumigate, Watergate!
      And if you can't Watergate, fornicate!
      And if you can't fornicate, read Slashdot!

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    3. Re:You know what they say... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you can't read slashdot, complain that ubuntu won't run MS Word so then you can't get a degree?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    4. Re:You know what they say... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you can't fumigate, masturbate... and it seems that's exactly what they're doing. Bloody wankers.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    5. Re:You know what they say... by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bloody? That's gotta be pretty furious then.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  2. Very nice! by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As if the frakin' telecommunications industry in this country wasn't crap enough compared to Europe and Asia.

    Way to go.

  3. Litigation is expensive by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...but filing ITC complaints is cheap.

    The whole point here is that enforcing these patents against all of those companies is an expensive proposition with no guarantee of returns. However, they can get Free Money by extorting those companies to pay them royalties, backed up by the threat of an import ban from the ITC, and even if their complaint is rejected, they've spent practically nothing.

    1. Re:Litigation is expensive by StuartHankins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's way past time for patent reform, these patent trolls are way out of hand.

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      They buy an idea, then sit on it. No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part). Bad for consumers, bad for other businesses. Boo!

    2. Re:Litigation is expensive by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be too sure that nobody profits from these sorts of things.

      I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Litigation is expensive by Zordak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    4. Re:Litigation is expensive by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, you haven't been keeping up. The popular M.O. is to sit on the idea until it has already become popular, THEN offer licenses. If you come out with the patent to begin with, potential licensees will just work around it. Waiting until they have built their business on it is far more profitable in the long run.

    5. Re:Litigation is expensive by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.

      When was the last time Apple based a product on what their lawyers told them? Seriously. Apple has a long and flagrant history of violating 'intellectual property' laws starting with name of the company itself. Anybody remember the 'sosueme' audio file?

      --
      My blog
    6. Re:Litigation is expensive by philspear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's way past time for patent reform, these patent trolls are way out of hand.

      Why is this not happening? Seems like the companies who actually produce stuff have a major economic interest in this, that usually translates into lobbyists and shortly, political action. Seems like the only time big buisness doesn't get it's way on issues like this is when there's another big buisness interest opposing it.

      What exactly is keeping patent law open to trolling like this? Big powerful patent troll association I've never heard of? Or is it more that the buisnesses hurt by abuses don't have the imagination to come up with a way to throw the bathwater out while keeping the baby (in this case, defending their own products against patent infringements)? Seems like one possible solution has been tossed around here forever and has just been mentioned: if you don't have a product that uses your patent, you can't defend it.

      There are going to be problems with such legislation that will need to be worked out, but that's never stopped them before.

    7. Re:Litigation is expensive by KarrdeSW · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.

      Patent trolling companies cover this by purchasing common stock in a company that practices whatever idea they are suing over. Stock represents equity which represents ownership of said 'domestic industry'. It's messy, but it works.

    8. Re:Litigation is expensive by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      No, because some times sitting on an idea to get another company to pay for it is a legitimate practice.

      Let's say I create Startup Inc, and design a new type of lithography. I don't have the money to build a fab or anything, so I show the tech to Intel and offer to let them use it in exchange for royalties. Under your system they could say no, use it anyway, and I wouldn't be able to sue, because I don't have an actual product.

      Patent trolls suck, and there should be a way to stop them through litigation, but we have to be sure that we don't kill off real innovators in the process.

    9. Re:Litigation is expensive by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anybody remember the 'sosueme' audio file?

      You must mean Sosumi.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    10. Re:Litigation is expensive by Zordak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Still, somebody must be practicing the invention. You can't just pull the classic troll trick of having a thousand questionable patents and filing shotgun suits. It has to be more targeted because you (or somebody related) have to actually be doing it.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    11. Re:Litigation is expensive by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Let's say I create Startup Inc, and design a new type of lithography. I don't have the money to build a fab or anything, so I show the tech to Intel and offer to let them use it in exchange for royalties."

      In order for you to convince Intel you show them a prototype. *Then* you have a working example covering your patent. If you don't have even a prototype then all you have is an idea and ideas shouldn't be subjected to patents.

      "Patent trolls suck, and there should be a way to stop them through litigation, but we have to be sure that we don't kill off real innovators in the process."

      Two words: Trade Secrets.

    12. Re:Litigation is expensive by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I managed to invent a process for producing hydrogen at 1/1000'th of the cost but it required a massive amount of money to actually produce the plant, for example...

      If you didn't build a prototype then you didn't know whether your process would actually work. If you didn't know whether it would work then you didn't really invent anything. And if you didn't really invent anything then you didn't deserve a patent anyway!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Litigation is expensive by mxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They buy an idea, then sit on it. No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part). Bad for consumers, bad for other businesses. Boo!

      Let's step back a bit here though. "no efforts on their part" is not exactly true. They have capital in the matter. They are investing in those patents, presumably because they think the idea has merit -- but they are taking the risk that it does not. They do not "line their pockets" without the patent having some form of merit.

      The patents came from somewhere, their original creators presumably got compensated and therefore had more incentive to patent in the first case (instead of keeping their ideas a trade secret).

      Yes, the patent system is broken, yes, patent trolls suck, but don't make them out to be worse than they are. All the big corporations have giant patent portfolios as well. You could call them patent trolls too. Indeed, they engage in exactly the same conduct (cross-licensing-deals are borne out of this).

      Patents are not an inherently bad concept, but yes, they have been abused quite badly in recent years. Reforming the system in a sensible manner would be good. Do you have any proposals as to how to go about it ?

    14. Re:Litigation is expensive by kamochan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      History seems to hint that rather than foster innnovation, religion retards it. Here's an article summary that suggests sectarian fighting between Jews, Christians and Muslim Alexandrians were the last nail in the coffin for the Library - which had fostered people like Heron, the inventor of the steam engine (around 50 BC).

      It just makes me want to scream when I think that we lost 1500+ friggin years...

    15. Re:Litigation is expensive by MasterOfDisaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does a company that has developed, manufactured, marketed and sold an actual product benefit when years later comes around and says "Nope, you can't keep selling that until you license your idea from us."

      Patents have their uses. An invention a person or company spends time and money researching should be protected to a degree. IFF it is original and non obvious - especially if there is an actual product you're selling incorporating this patent.

      However, filing a patent for every damn thing you can think of with "on the internet" or "on a mobile phone" tacked on the end IS an abuse of the system.

      --
      The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
    16. Re:Litigation is expensive by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Informative

      The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard because Steve Jobs hates buttons.

    17. Re:Litigation is expensive by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, of course they offer licenses, AFTER they sit.

      If they offered licenses up-front it wouldn't be a scam. They'd have to have a useful tech and people would see that and pay to use it, new products would be made, everyone WOULD benefit.

      But in the patent-troll scenario they obtain a patent on a useless piece of tech, not something nobody wants, but something so simple everyone independently invents it, and they wait until everyone does when they suddenly "offer" licenses. If, by offer, you mean threaten to destroy the livelihoods via harassment lawsuit of people who don't immediately pay them.

      And yes there is profit - patent trolls and patent lawyers make out like the bandits they are. Everyone else loses. But nobody considers these to be people, and it ignores the extermination costs, so it was simpler to say that nobody profits.

      You say you've been keeping up, but your words betray a total lack of comprehension. Are you a troll yourself, do you own stock in RAMBUS, or are you just stupid?

    18. Re:Litigation is expensive by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair, Apple Computer wasn't violating IP law when adding sound capabilities to their operating system, they were violating contract law when they violated the details of their settlement with Apple Records. At least, arguably. And given that computers making music was utterly inevitable and that the argument that there would be confusion between Apple Computer and Apple Records was Just. Fucking. Stupid., it's hard to argue that they really did anything wrong there. My (admittedly limited) understanding of trademark law is that you can't create a trademark which is substantially similar if it will cause confusion. My also-limited understanding of this case is that Apple Records abused the system in the hopes of making some free money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Litigation is expensive by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Loser pays won't work unless you adjust for the financial load.

      The RIAA can sue a college student and spend a million dollars, let's say 1000 times more than the student has, and easily afford to pay this if they lose. The student can only afford maybe $100 to actually pursue justice and could never hope the pay the RIAA legal team's lunch bill if he lost.

      But we all know the court system is worthless anyways because the party with the most money wins - even if they don't "win" you die a pauper, likely with the trial still going sixty years later.

      So we fix both problems at once by pooling legal funds - the college student pays his $100, the RIAA pays as much as they wish ($1M for instance), and each gets $500,050 to spend.

      The goal, to society, is for a trial to discover truth and produce justice. To let any side bully the other, or snow it under with paperwork, only perverts that.

    20. Re:Litigation is expensive by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard because Steve Jobs hates people.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  4. patents by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is exactly what is wrong with the patent process. You have a "company" of only FIVE people, who could potentially stop any technology that might "infringe" on these obscure patents.

  5. IP - Imaginary Property by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    my god the US patent office needs to start applying this thing called the obviousness test.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:IP - Imaginary Property by temcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Moreover, the obviousness test should be much more stringent: if I can easily recreate the thing by just looking at it, then it isn't patentable. Only stuff that can exist as trade secrets (that is, can't be easily figured out by studying the item) should be patentable. Which is far closer to the original intent of the patent system.

  6. Until.... by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just until they threaten a company with large revenues run as a mob front and their office is suddenly visited by Luca Brasi and Furio....

  7. This is bad for the US... in the long run. by KokorHekkus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the US patent system diverges far enough from the global average rights of patents then the US market will become too expensive to both develop for and enter into. Of course the US market is a major one but if the worldwide market share is bigger it means that the risks in the US (submarine patents etc) are not worth spending your money on primarily. So it will protect the US companies on their home turf. But multinational companpanies, even US based, will be looking at the US as a secondary market because of the risks.

    1. Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Another possible outcome is that companies cave in to the trolls and enter into licensing arrangements for products sold in the US. Multiply by a factor of 100 or so for each of the patents for so-called "inventions" that might be infringed by any given product.

      The costs will then be passed on to the US consumer. The end result is a private taxation system where every consumer and every business effectively pays a "high tech" tax on every high tech device purchased and every service used. And the money just disappears into the pockets of the patent speculators ... with no net return to businesses, consumers, or even to the people who created the inventions in the first place.

  8. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Speaking as a non-American, I think this is fantastic! The faster the ban happens the better! What an excellent way to make sure that the US lags in technology and becomes non-competitive. Neat way to destroy your technology lead.

    Now if we can encourage you to do the same in other fields of endeavor. Shakes head with wonder and disbelief.

  9. I guess it's clear why AMD sold them... by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...because they're crap. I looked at the first patent and the first few claims looked suspiciously like the (certainly not novel) idea of connecting up a keyboard matrix in such a way that pressing a key triggers an interrupt on the row lines, which triggers a wake-up event and a keyboard scan. I couldn't tell about the later claims. Then I looked at the interrupt mask patent

    1. An interrupt mask disable circuit comprising:

    first logic circuitry operably coupled to receive an interrupt request and a mask signal and to provide an interrupt signal when the interrupt request is active and the mask signal is disabled, and to provide a non-interrupt signal when the mask signal is enabled regardless of whether the interrupt request is active or inactive; and
    second logic circuitry operably coupled to receive a mask activation signal and a mask override signal and to produce the mask signal, wherein the mask signal is enabled when the mask activation signal is active and the mask override signal is not enabled and wherein the mask signal is disabled when the mask override signal is active regardless of whether the mask activation signal is enabled or disabled.

    You've got to be kidding me. AMD patented a common interrupt mask circuit... in 1994? Apparently it isn't only with respect to software that the patent office is out of touch.

  10. Patents and the monkeys typing Shakespear... by SuperCharlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Im reading yet another article on how some troll is ransoming out some more patents.. great.. meanwhile, a day or two ago I read the who's got the most patents for 2008 and numbers like.. IBM said it earned 4,186 U.S. patents in 2008, Microsoft Corp earned 2,030 patents, while Intel Corp had 1,776 and Hewlett-Packard 1,424. (from a Slashdot article)

    Im thinkin the real weight of the patent system isnt even touched by major corps. Individual and small group/investment firm patent companys like Eolas looking for that ONE patent to go home on, by sheer numbers, probably dwarf the IBM and MS's of the world.. regardless..

    By sheer brute force attack on common technology methods, conduits, hardware and the like they create a "monkeys typing Shakespear" effect, not with letters, but with common terms and principles.

    At the rate the monkeys are being added, soon no one should be able to do anything without everyones approval.



    Tada...

    1. Re:Patents and the monkeys typing Shakespear... by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Im thinkin the real weight of the patent system isnt even touched by major corps. Individual and small group/investment firm patent companys like Eolas looking for that ONE patent to go home on, by sheer numbers, probably dwarf the IBM and MS's of the world.. regardless.."

      I really don't know, but it doesn't matter. The core of the bussines here is not having "that ONE patent" but having that one patent WITHOUT an industry backing it up. Big corps have used patents as deterrent weapons against their rivals for decades now but the problem here is not a little tech company with the "ONE patent": as long as they produce something, they are probably in violation of dozens of patents belonging to the very ones they want to license to, so they will be forced into a mutual agreement; if the case is between two big corps they have such a big patent arsenal that they again are forced to cooperate or face an assured mutual destruction scenario. But lawyer-based firms don't produce anything so they are immune to the usual patent counterattack which has made the patent system flaws more obvious.

  11. Domestic Industry? by UnrealisticWhample · · Score: 3, Informative

    They don't even have an actual website. If you go to , all you'll find is an under construction message. Pretty much all you can find about them online is related to suing people. I miss the good ole days of the 1790's when Thomas Jefferson would deny a patent if the inventor couldn't demonstrate a working product.

    1. Re:Domestic Industry? by conureman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the lesson here is that the system was designed with some basic assumptions about the "anybody" who would be running it, but the Founding Fathers were not aware that The Enlightenment would be just a temporary aberration.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  12. Re:You are kidding. right? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    EU could not handle a 9/11 in their system.

    Neither could the USA it seems.

  13. One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX by Hangtime · · Score: 3, Informative

    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ding ding ding

    I'm from Texas and I think every judge in that district should be removed.

    1. Re:One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX by ubernostrum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would really dearly love to see a lot of tech companies start refusing to ship products to east Texas, and start refusing to do distribution deals to stores there. Take every single useful gadget off their market with an industry boycott, and tell 'em that they can have their shiny gizmos back when they stop producing ludicrous patent decisions.

  14. You should be cheering this. Really. by toby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You worked out yet why your economy is in the crapper?

    Imports. And outsourcing all your manufacturing to China.

    --
    you had me at #!
  15. And if you litigate.... by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Say hello to my LITTLE FRIEND! /funny

    Seriously, these suits are approaching a level of craziness that someone, somewhere, at some time will simply not retain counsel, and will instead just kill the IP firm's principals, lawyers, etc. Or spawn a "take care of it" industry that will indeed "take care" of the "problem" for under 10% of the amount at stake.

    When billions of dollars are at stake, I'd never put anything past a CEO. When billions of tax revenues are at stake even the FBI will overlook a small local arson case...

  16. Quickest solution by yabba-dabba-do · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is for RIM to disable Obama's phone. "Sorry, when the patent mess is cleaned up, we'll turn it back on."

  17. When will it end.... by Llian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder what else the US citizenry will allow to screw them over. I mean in economic times like these STILL allowing the big boys to LESSEN competition? WTG!!

    Drill --> Nose --> Power On --> Push upwards

  18. Re:prior art by OolimPhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can do much better than that. Honeywell Level 66 mainframes had mailboxes in their CPUs to talk to the I/O processors. This dates back to at least 1975, when I first encountered them. Probably true for Multics mainframes from the '60s too.

  19. patents should be non-transferable by josepha48 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    pretty simple, companies should not sell and buy patents!

    Either that or they should be treated as real property and taxed, like real estate is taxed in most states. Then annual taxes would be assessed to patent holder.

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?