Apple vs. Nokia vs. Google vs. HTC

Lanxon writes "Wired has published a lengthy investigation into the litigation underway among some of the world's biggest cell phone manufacturers, and what it means for the industry of patent lawsuits and patent squatting. 'According to a 2009 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, from 1995 to 2008 non-practising entities [patent trolls] have been awarded damages that are, on average, more than double those for practising entities. Consider Research In Motion's 2006 payout of over $612 million to Virginia-based patent-holding company NTP, to avoid its BlackBerry network being shut down in the US. As part of the settlement, NTP granted RIM a licence to use its patented technology; it has subsequently filed lawsuits against AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon.'"

Comments

Business as usual

[wombatmobile]

The Americas first telegram, transmitted via a repeater: "What hath God wrought" sent by Samuel F.B. Morse in 1844.

Re:Business as usual

[WrongSizeGlass]

The Americas first telegram, transmitted via a repeater: "What hath God wrought" sent by Samuel F.B. Morse in 1844.

And the first reply was:
I'm sorry, God is not available at the moment. To leave a message for God please transmit your message after the beep. When you are finished transmit '1' for more options.

Re:Business as usual

[tyrione]

The Americas first telegram, transmitted via a repeater: "What hath God wrought" sent by Samuel F.B. Morse in 1844.

And the first reply was: I'm sorry, God is not available at the moment. To leave a message for God please transmit your message after the beep. When you are finished transmit '1' for more options.

Or transmit '2' for Toys and Santa Claus will receive your request soon.

Patent trolling should be outlawed

[kaptink]

Patent trolling/squatting should be outlawed internationally.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[HEbGb]

Agreed. They are nothing but parasites on productive companies.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Interoperable]

It seems to me that a requirement for maintaining a valid patent should be that you must be producing something that uses it or actively developing something that uses it. It's a simple notion, in following with the principles of patents, that would neatly eliminate patent trolling and patenting just to block competitors. It would likely lighten the work load of the patent office as well, since broad patents for that purpose would be useless. I'm a strong supporter of patents and intellectual property but I think that there needs to be a clear path from initial innovation to a specific product or set of products in order for a patent to be considered enforceable.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[T Murphy]

I'm not convinced. Patent trolls seem to be the only thing that can repeatedly stand up to big business, get money out of it, and not get bribed to stop or legislated out of existence(yet). We need to learn to imitate their strategy in pro-consumer cases before we get rid of them.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[lorenlal]

I'm 100% with you. Of course, I'm wondering what the standard for demonstrating active development would be? Also, who would be checking to see that they're actually doing something with it?

Clearly, we couldn't take the company's word for it. If they did decide to waste money by pretending to do development, it would at least introduce some risk to the trolling company in terms of cost. Also, faking records would be quite interesting to the SEC.

If we can answer these questions, we could finally stop bitching about patent trolls and try to do something about it... Like getting in the ear of our lawmakers, and trying to get them to realize how bad this is for the economy. The finishing move would be: Bad economy -> The more likely you'll not see the other side of the next election.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Yvanhoe]

Amen

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[rpresser]

That's insane. That would remove all protection from the traditional lone inventor who comes up with something useful and wants to sell it to the big companies. In effect you'd be saying that you can't invent anything unless you plan to sell it yourself.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[elewton]

Not necesarily - it "actively developing" or even "producing" could include sale as a package of the patent. But I don't understand why broad patents would be useless. Surely, the broader the better.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[BarryJacobsen]

That's insane. That would remove all protection from the traditional lone inventor who comes up with something useful and wants to sell it to the big companies. In effect you'd be saying that you can't invent anything unless you plan to sell it yourself.

What if you're only allowed to not produce something for ONE patent. Protects the lone inventor, while still hurting patent trolls.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[imakemusic]

Of course, I'm wondering what the standard for demonstrating active development would be?

That was my first thought. I'm wondering....constantly checking all patents would be impossible. Instead they (whoever they may be) only need to check if someone else wants to use the patent. Maybe charge a small fee for this.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[chrb]

must be producing something that uses it or actively developing something that uses it

Two problems:

• Does the item that uses the patent have to actually do anything? I can take a patent, and then implement some product that I have absolutely no intention of ever selling or releasing to the public. And if I did sell it, would there be a minimum sales threshold for the patent to be valid? If I make a single item, put it on ebay, does that then make the patent valid?
• What about companies that produce intellectual property, such as patents, and then license those patents to third parties? The patents involved in this model are now no longer valid, because the inventor does not directly produce items for sale?

The patent system relies on the ability to discriminate between entities with valid patents, and entities without valid patents. This is the fundamental issue - whether this is even possible. Even assuming that it is possible, there are still problems.

• Who decides whether or not a patent is valid. How is a jury qualified to decide on patent validity? Should there be some alternative? What?
• The cost. Will the state continue to finance the patent system, through patent offices, examiners, courts? Fixing the patent system will require a greater investment than is currently being made by any nation - who is going to pay for this? The inventor? That would favour rich over the poor. Should it continue to be paid for through taxation? That will require increasing taxes.
• The current system favours large corporations that can afford to keep patent lawyers on the payroll. Small inventors can not afford court cases that run for years.
• Geographical scope of patents in a globalised economy. What if a company in China violates your U.S/E.U. patents, running software on servers that are accessible globally? This kind of scenario requires a global patent framework, with some kind of oversight body (WIPO? United Nations?). Do you really want that? If you say that corporations in other countries can willfully violate patents, then corporations will favour locating subsidiaries in countries that have no patent enforcement. We are already seeing this - hardware companies moving to China, which has one of the lowest rates of patent enforcement in the world, and biotech companies opening R&D subsidiaries in India.
• Where is the evidence that the patent system actually does what it is supposed to - that is, enable real inventors to fairly profit from their inventions, whilst maintaining the right of others to compete fairly by manufacturing their own inventions. When was the last time you heard a positive patent story? Ever?

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[UCSCTek]

Sounds nice, but how do you enforce it? What if you claim to be "working on the implementation" of the patent in preparation for production, does that count? How many units do you have to produce? Maybe they can make 1 widget per year that utilizes the patents.

I think one solution could be the following: damages for patent infringement calculated based on the value the patent-holder has already produced through the implementation of the patent. Example: company A has a patent for product X, company B infringes. If A has produced N units of X, then B must pay damages equivalent to some multiple of the market value of the N units of X. So, if N = 0, B pays nothing.

This has the benefit that a popular, valuable product would receive commensurate protection. Perhaps some future extrapolation could be involved as well, in order to better protect young products. Or maybe keep full patent protection for a short time, like 2 years, to give the patent holder time to get the product to market.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Demonantis]

What shouldn't happen is penalties for non-compliance. The most the courts should do is force the company to pay reasonable royalties consistent with the industry to the damaged party. Anything after that is simply abuse of the patent system. Making no benefit being a patent troll or developing company. One really obvious question, especially with software patents, that needs to be ask is how valid is the patent if multiple independent sources seem to develop it? Is it really that innovative?

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'm 100% with you. Of course, I'm wondering what the standard for demonstrating active development would be? Also, who would be checking to see that they're actually doing something with it?

If they want to sue a company for using their patent then they'll have to show that they were actively selling or developing a product that included and properly utilized the patent at the time the accused infringer started their supposed violation of said patent.

A company that is using someone's unused patent needs to strike a licensing agreement with the patent owner or stop using the patent within a fixed period of time (6 - 12 months?) once they become aware of the existing patent. No "settlements" for using a patent troll's "intellectual property land mine". If they weren't acting in bad faith they should be allowed some time to change over to another method/process/product that they license from someone else or develop themselves.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[rpresser]

The patent system relies on the ability to discriminate between entities with valid patents, and entities without valid patents. This is the fundamental issue - whether this is even possible.

If I come up with a solution, can I patent it?

It's probably an NP-complete problem anyway.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[L4t3r4lu5]

In that case, he'd patent it, then sell the patent. They want the situation to be the guy turning up, maybe even a year after the patent is granted and say "Hey, that's actually my thing that you're doing. How about sending me some money?" Hell, it could even end up as being "Hey, I've already done that. Employ me and I'll make it super-wicked for you, for less than you'll spend on your R&D guys hacking it together as they've been doing so far."

What they want to do is stop patents being sat on for years on end, only to be used to strip the people using the patented tech of the profit they made independently researching and developing it. It's all about the definition of "reasonable period of notification" which needs to be addressed.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[iamhassi]

"It seems to me that a requirement for maintaining a valid patent should be that you must be producing something that uses it or actively developing something that uses it."

I wouldn't go that far: what if you're some genius doing research and stumble across a new invention or way of doing something but don't have the millions it would cost to put it into action? Of course you should be rewarded for your effort, but not hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think there should be limits. I don't think you should just write down an idea and never use it and extort $600 million from the people that actually put it into use. That's like writing down the cure to cancer but sitting on it until someone spends the millions to actually develop it and then suing them.

I think our horrible patent system is one of the greatest threats to our country. They grant these overly broad patents that cover every possible method of doing anything, and then punish the company that spends the millions to create the product and bring it to the masses. Seems the entire patent system's motto is "be evil".

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[yeshuawatso]

This would be similar to how trademark law works. If you don't actively use (and renew) your trademark, you lose it. The idea behind patents though is to temporarily give you a monopoly. Trademark is just to prevent consumer confusion.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Interoperable]

As for the first concern, I think it would be easy to discriminate between cases where a company was selling token products to try to validate the patent artificially and a company that incorporated selling those products into its business model. That would be a matter for litigation, but wouldn't be any more gray than prior art, originality or utility. The clause would apply to companies that tried to use litigation as the primary revenue source and not production.

As for the second concern, the patent would remain valid as long as either the holder or a licensee was producing a product using the patent.

As for your comment "When was the last time you heard a positive patent story?," my answer would be: every time I use a product that incorporates clever engineering into its design. The brilliant engineers of the world are paid because they have good, unique ideas that can produce useful things. The patent stories that come up on /. are the cases where the current patent laws are inappropriate to the spirit of upholding intellectual property. All the time I marvel at innovative things that I see around me and I think "damn that's clever, I never would have thought of doing that way." Every time I do that I gain a tremendous respect for the person that came up with it and I appreciate that the product that I'm using is the fruit of their ingenuity. The argument has been hashed out too many times on /. and I'm not interested in an argument, but I wanted to point out that I see positive patent stories all around me because I respect the thought that went into building the things that I use. ("One-Click Purchasing" is not one of those things.)

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Interoperable]

Obviously licensing use of the patent would be considered using it. Patent sales would be fine, the purchaser of the patent would simply have to produce something with it or license it to a third party. As I said, there would have to be clear path from the patent to a product that employs it but the path doesn't have to be a single link.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Interoperable]

Right. It would only come up if a patent troll decided to litigate, in which case the validity of the patent would be assessed.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Bysshe]

I disagree, The lone inventor has put significant time, energy and probably own funds into developing the patent. If he intends to license it that would also be considered future development. The important factor of the lone inventor is that he developed the technology he patented.

A patent troll buys a patent for the sole purpose of holding it for license or for litigation. The major difference being the troll didn't do any of the development work themselves.

I would suggest outlawing the patent trolls who's only contribution to a patent is a financial one (through buying a patent or only providing fiscal assets to an inventor)

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

> That would remove all protection from the traditional lone inventor who
> comes up with something useful and wants to sell it to the big companies

Hmm, I assume you've never actually tried to sell a patent to the"big companies" as a lone inventor.

They usually say, en bloc, "that's clever but we have no immediate market opportunity for that".

Then they carefully design non-infringing products that perform a similar function.

Yes, I am bitter.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Interoperable]

You could sell the patent or license it. Both cases produce a clear path from the patent to a product and reward the inventor. The only thing that would be ruled out is doing nothing for five years then popping up and demanding payment when a company produces something that tangentially relates to your patent.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[delinear]

Maybe, instead of trying to solve how to manage patents, we instead look at managing the enforcement. It seems to me a lot of the issues circulate around the fact that companies sit on patents for years and years, waiting for the widespread infringement to take hold, and only then seek to enforce them when they'd do the most damage. Maybe if there was a stipulation that patents had to be enforced within one year of the first competitor infringing them, and that this must be done for each subsequent competitor who infringes. If you let more than a year pass since a competitor went to market, you lose the right to enforce against them and all future infringers, since at this point the invention has obviously entered the "public consciousness".

This would end the situation of companies being essentially blackmailed for huge sums years after they implemented the technology. Companies could discover, at minimal cost, whether the owner intended to enforce the patent by doing a very small product run. I think this would help redress the balance - after all, patents are meant to be about protecting your invention, not punishing the competition as much as possible, and of course, if the idea was good enough, the competitor will pay the big upfront license fee to use it, it wouldn't harm lone inventors, it would stop patent troll companies sitting on patents for years while the popularity of the competitor's product reaches such a level that they have to accede to your demand or lose millions, it just removes the second guessing element.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[DarthVain]

Ya in defense of the Trolls, it is likely hard to tell one activity from another.

I remember the story of the guy who invented "intermittent wipers". He showed the idea to Ford (I think) in an attempt to sell them the idea, and they just stole it and used it. I am pretty sure the guy was successful (eventually) in suing Ford.

But there is an example of a legitimate use of a patent.

I think the fault lies with the Patent Office. In many cases the Patents in question are so vague and open than they could apply to anything. These are what the Patent trolls use to make their money. They come up with thousands of vague ideas, and sit on them, waiting for someone else to make something similar, then they sue. This is counter to the whole idea of Patents which is to promote innovation.

The difficulty that the Patent Office has (and I see no solution) is they they are not experts in any of the stuff being submitted, which more and more is of a very technical nature. They would have no idea what is "vague" or what is reasonable. So this is what has to be fixed as I see it. Perhaps they need to collaborate with other bodies or institutions to acquire the needed knowlege. How that works I don't know. Obviously they don't either, as this system has been broken for a long time now.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[bhtooefr]

Alternately, set up a patent troll to attack companies that we want to kill.

Patent trolls normally go for money, and when they're given money, they go away.

A patent troll that files a patent that is essential to implement something that comes out later, and then sues everyone using it, and successfully stops distribution of many products... would have devastating effects on those companies, the economy, and it would trigger massive patent reform.

Re:Patent trolling should be outlawed

[Anonymous Coward]

You have some intelligent arguments there. However, there are a few fundamental points that must be read in conjunction with your post,

1. The patent system IS BROKEN (but can be fixed)
2. It is essential that patents have a very limited life (a maximum acceptable life, set by govt)
3. Unless there is a very strong argument, no patent should be valid for more than the maximum acceptable life - otherwise it hurts society and the consumer

This is a simple, fundamental principle. When it's "realized", people will say "what the fuck were we thinking".
AC

Think about your breathing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that's right, THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING. Why you might ask? Well it's simple!

Your brain usually takes care of breathing FOR you, but whenever you remember this, YOU MUST MANUALLY BREATH! If you don't you will DIE.

There are also MANY variations of this. For example, think about:

* BLINKING!
* SWALLOWING SALIVA!
* HOW YOUR FEET FEEL IN YOUR SOCKS!

In conclusion, the THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING troll is simply unbeatable. These 4 words can be thrown randomly into article text, into sigs, into anything, and once seen, WILL FORCE THE VICTIM TO TAKE CARE OF HIS BREATHING MANUALLY! This goes far beyond the simple annoying or insulting trolls of yesteryear.

In fact, by EVEN RESPONDING to this, you are proving that IT HAS CLAIMED ANOTHER VICTIM -- YOU!

Re:Think about your breathing

[Critical Facilities]

That may be the first Mindfulness based troll I've ever seen. Hmmm, makes me wonder if Bhante G is posting as A.C.

My mind is officially blown.

Re:Think about your breathing

[i ate my neighbour]

Where is "+1 Troll" option?

Re:Think about your breathing

[geminidomino]

I find it far more insidious to hit them with "WHAT IS YOUR TONGUE DOING, RIGHT NOW?"

Re:Think about your breathing

[Anonymous Monkey]

Sir, I remove my hat and stand. This is the "Best Troll Ever"

Re:Think about your breathing

[Anarki2004]

-1 Troll, then +5 underrated I think will do the trick.

Re:Think about your breathing

[Gilmoure]

Don't even blink.

Re:Think about your breathing

[Anonymous Coward]

shoo shoo, back to 4chan with you!

Intellect Venture

[pacificleo]

I guess MS holds some stake in that . one way or another Bill G will make money

kill the trolls

[X10]

There should be a law against patent trolls. Or should we call Frodo?

Re:kill the trolls

[codeButcher]

I'm thinking, if I where only a little bit brighter, I could have patented patent trolling. Just imagine....

So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How long before "Non-Practicing Entity" goes from harmless-sounding euphemism to sinister dysphemism, the way terms like "Ethnic Cleansing" have?

Re:So...

[eldavojohn]

How long before "Non-Practicing Entity" goes from harmless-sounding euphemism to sinister dysphemism, the way terms like "Ethnic Cleansing" have?

Dysphemism? I don't get it. When has "ethnic cleansing" been used to describe something that wasn't really killing/displacing people that don't align exactly with your ethnicity/religion/culture? That phrase became popular (at least for me) while I was in high school (Hutu & Tutsi conflict, Kosovo) and I haven't heard it used as a "sinister dysphemism" to describe something innocuous where serious stuff wasn't going down.

Non-Practicing Entity already has a sinister sound to it in my mind. I would compare it more with things like "ponzi scheme" or "tax evasion." Things meant to game the system at other's expenses but can themselves be very hard to define precisely. And once you make them illegal, the people gaming the system just move their foot back so far that their toe is back on the line. For example, say you need to have one working prototype to hold a patent. Well, there's going to be tons of companies just throwing something together and calling it a prototype. Now you say it needs to be working ... so companies like Acacia Research and IP Ventures will stand up some prototype fabrication company that just specializes in that and NDAs. So you say they need a factory. Well, they'll buy abandoned warehouses in Montana and put the working prototypes in the warehouses. It just goes on and on until you realize that you're also hurting the small time inventors that can't afford the factories and then the system is broken a different way.

I'd love to end patent trolling. I'd love to restrict non-practicing entities. The problem is that I can't really define either of them satisfactorily such that it's not broken another way. Can you?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Zionists consider "Ethnic Cleansing" to be a sinister dysphemism of their good old fashioned colonialism.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Phrase "Ethnic Cleansing" never, ever existed as "harmless-sounding euphemism", from the very beginning of its existence. It was readily coined as sinister dysphemism by a member of the press who ironically responded with it on a Bosnian Serb military press briefing when B.S.mil. spokesman tried, in broken English, to convey reporters information that his side forces, after making a push against their opponents' forces are in phase of clearing the remaining pockets of armed resistance along the former front line, but used the similar-sounding and related word cleansing in place of "clearing". Adverb "Ethnic" was attached to it by the reporter, thus creating and launching a novel phrase. Perhaps the TV footage of that briefing could be found on YouTube.

Re:So...

[stealth_finger]

"I'd love to end patent trolling. I'd love to restrict non-practicing entities. The problem is that I can't really define either of them satisfactorily such that it's not broken another way. Can you?" I tried...I failed. If only the law could take common sense for granted you wouldn't need such tight definitions of what is what and what it is or isn't allowed to do

Hardly a mexican standoff

[dgr73]

The article describes the Nokia Apple patent suit/countersuit situation as a mexican standoff. This has been discussed ad nauseum already here on slashdot and I think it's hardly that. Unless you call one person pointing a water pistol and another aiming a cannon a mexican standoff.

Assuming both sides claims are deemed to have merit and both refuse to pay licensing fees, Nokia has to think of another implementation for some GUI elements, hardly a gargantuan task. However, if Nokia wins, Apple has to reinvent mobile technology, then get all the networks to support their new implementation.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[FlorianMueller]

I agree that Nokia vs. Apple/Apple vs. Nokia isn't a Mexican standoff but that Nokia probably owns the far more fundamental mobile patents. However, the problem that Nokia has in this is that its most fundamental patents in the mobile space are part of GSM and other standards. That fact doesn't expropriate Nokia but at some point they could come under pressure that those are patents that should be made available on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Then Nokia could argue that it is, in Nokia's view, not at all unreasonable to ask Apple for a cross-licensing deal because otherwise Apple could exclusively control some of the more recent technologies (multitouch etc.) while Nokia (and similar vendors) would be expected to grant licenses to their patents only because they're part of older standards definitions.

Apple faces the typical problem of a late entrant: even if you obtain some patents on new technologies, you still need the underlying old technologies and those patents are generaly still valid, given that patents expire only after 20 years (except for a failure to pay renewal fees, which won't happen if the patent holder is Nokia and the patents are valuable). That's why in an area of incremental innovations patents may not be even remotely as helpful to innovative late entrants as many people are led to believe.

In terms of waster pistol vs. aiming a cannon, I think this also applies to the Apple/HTC situation and HTC's announcement of yesterday that it's now (counter-)"suing" Apple.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[buchanmilne]

However, if Nokia wins, Apple has to reinvent mobile technology, then get all the networks to support their new implementation.

Which will never happen, because two mobile telephony standards (CDMA and GSM, loosely speaking) are more than enough. Even if it did, Apple would need to ensure Telco providers ship equipment, create chipsets for their (and other OEM) use, ensure it is possible to license spectrum, convince Telcos to roll out the massive infrastructure required etc. etc. etc. Of course, the question is, if Apple had not concluded licensing negotiations, why did they infringe on GSM licensing, when there were other alternatives (CDMA+EV-DO, instead of GSM+HSDPA) available to them?

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[d3xt3r]

It could be a lot worse for Nokia if Apple is able to prove that the licensing fees Nokia requested from Apple for essential GSM patents turns out to be unreasonable. Nokia does hold GSM patents, which as part of a standard are required to be licensed under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms. If Apple can prove that Nokia requested unreasonable terms from Apple for the GSM patents, Nokia may be in trouble with the ETSI.

If anything good comes out of this for future patent encumbered standards, it could be that the courts may be left to define what fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory actually means. As Engadget states in their coverage:

In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is. source

It would be nice if these cases were looked at as clear reason why we really need patent reform, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[JiveDog]

However, if Nokia wins, Apple has to reinvent mobile technology, then get all the networks to support their new implementation.

Considering that Apple has done this once already, I'd place money on them to do it again if they have to...with that said, Apple isn't the type of company to roll over and let this kind of thing happen to them. Remember, they're the pitbull bred for the ultimate fight. They are Microsoft's original enemy and no other company has done battle or suffered as much as Apple has when it comes to patent/innovation fights.

What everyone seems to forget is that Apple is in the spot they're in precisely for these reasons and they're determined never to let that happen again.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Rogerborg]

It's also not a stand-off because everybody is shooting.

Best result: collective fatality, i.e. they're all blocked from shipping anything. Let's see how long software patents last if that comes to pass.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Fag. Apple hasn't reinvented mobile technology, they've slapped a new UI on the existing one.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[DMiax]

Were I to decide, I would ask Apple why they did not complain about the licensing cost earlier, instead of waiting to be sued. The best they could hope is convincing me that there was some failed attempt to abuse monopoly from Nokia, but they would still be infringing.

Obviously, I wish for a patent reform as much as you do, but I am pessimistic as well.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> Considering that Apple has done this once already, I'd place money on them to do it again if they have to

Wait, what? Apple has already reinvented mobile technology? I think you need to a bit easy on that apple kool-aid.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Critical Facilities]

However, if Nokia wins, Apple has to reinvent mobile technology

Not really. Apple could just partner with Sprint or Virgin Mobile.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[chowdahhead]

We don't know the details of the terms, but we do know from the complaint filed in Delaware that Nokia offered to license the technology based on either a per patent fee or one fee for the pool, in addition to interest. Reportedly, it was Apple that offered cross-licensing using UI and multitouch patents as compensation, presumably in place of fees and fines. Nokia rejected this, likely because these patents probably don't have much intrinsic value and could be invalidated as they are based on software implementations. The handset business is a lucrative one, and Apple has made billions from the technology developed by companies like Nokia and Motorola, apparently without contributing anything back to it. It's a difficult situation because we need private companies to research and develop revolutionary technology, and we need unified standards that all competitors can implement, but that's capitalism and that necessitates that companies become compensated for millions or billions USD of private capital spent in the process.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Steve Max]

That fact doesn't expropriate Nokia but at some point they could come under pressure that those are patents that should be made available on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.

That's the point: Nokia offered to license the patents under RAND terms to Apple (the same terms they offer other companies, including those that don't have so many GSM-related patents such as Samsung/LG/HTC), and Apple refused to pay. This is the reason Nokia sued: Apple wanted to use their patented technologies without licensing them.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[tepples]

Fag.

No thanks; I don't smoke. I'm a Libra, not a Cancer.

Apple hasn't reinvented mobile technology, they've slapped a new UI on the existing one.

That or Apple has reinvented the mobile GUI, which is still more of an accomplishment than "slapped" implies.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Anonymous Coward]

My point still stands: JiveDog is a huge flaming faggot for believing that Apple has "reinvented" mobile technology. They have demonstrated no competence in the area at all.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[NekSnappa]

Not quite true. Apple's beef with Nokia is that they were ignoring the "Non-Discriminatory" part of RAND.

Nokia wanted to have Apple not only pay the "Reasonable" fees that they were collecting from other mobile phone makers. But also wanted Apple to license patents it holds to them as part of the bargain.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[JiveDog]

Maybe so, but looking at things empirically, they went to Verizon first with the iPhone and asked that they were to be given control of their network structure to accommodate the design of the iPhone, both from a hardware and a voicemail perspective. Verizon tells them to pound sand so Apple goes to AT&T and they give them the control they needed to deliver the data and visual voicemail requirements.

So there's the first reinvention...of the network. I think that qualifies as mobile technology.

Then there's the device design itself. To the best of my recollection, there weren't any mass consumer devices that were based on capacitive touch technology on the scale that the iPhone introduced. As a result, the handset makers all jumped on the bandwagon making their own capacitive touch hardware to "compete" with Apple (ref: all the "iPhone killers" articles)

This doesn't take into account the App Store model, the drive to remove Flash and the support of HTML5 on mobile devices or the third party ecosystem of plugs, cables, chargers, cradles, speakers and other accessories that most definitely are considered part of mobile technology.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it doesn't take into account the App Store model, blah blah blah -- none of those have got anything whatsoever to do with mobile technology. You're a delusional FAG.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[E IS mC(Square)]

None of above has anything to do with mobile technology. You are high on apple kool-aid.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that Apple has done this once already, I'd place money on them to do it again if they have to

The mobile technology that Apple would have no reinvent isn't related to the interface (visual voice mail, touchscreen, UI, etc.), but to the communications back-end (mobile protocols, radios, antennas, etc.). Apple never touched the GSM and CDMA side of cell phones, so they couldn't have possibly reinvented mobile technology. Apple is at a disadvantage because Nokia's patents aren't software patents.

Also, Apple didn't almost go bankrupt because of patent disputes. Most of their "innovations" weren't born out of internal research, and can be directly traced to Amiga or Xerox PARC. Apple did the same as Microsoft -- they popularized good ideas. The difference is that Steve Jobs made a career out of grandiose claims, so most people think Apple came up with everything that looks good.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Archangel Michael]

Not only can Apple move to Sprint or Virgin, ATT would have a nice cause to sue Nokia for the loss of Apple.

The problem Nokia has is that if it sues Apple for patents related to GSM, then everyone who has GSM based products and services would have to start looking elsewhere for alternative technology for fear of being sued when things don't go Nokia's way.

The consequences of patent lawsuits between big players is much broader than the immediate entities involved.

Collateral Damage may come back to haunt Nokia.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[mgblst]

This is wrong. Nokia wanted to charge more that they charge there other clients, this is where the problems arised as far as Apple is concerned.

Nokia believes they are allowed to charge more to Apple than others, Apple does not believe that is so.

Apple would be more than happy for cross-licensing.

You comment is so wrong that it actually detracts from the argument, I would be embarrased to write such trash.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[mgblst]

You clearly have no experience in this area.

Before Nokia sued, Apple and Nokia were negotiating.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[mjwx]

That's the point: Nokia offered to license the patents under RAND terms to Apple (the same terms they offer other companies, including those that don't have so many GSM-related patents such as Samsung/LG/HTC), and Apple refused to pay. This is the reason Nokia sued: Apple wanted to use their patented technologies without licensing them.

To be a bit more precise, Apple paid for the RAND patents as everyone does but Apple did not pay for Nokia's patents not covered by the RAND agreement but proceeded to use them anyway. Nokia kindly asked Apple to pay for two and a half years before filing.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Anonymous Coward]

This is wrong. Nokia wanted to charge more that they charge there other clients, this is where the problems arised as far as Apple is concerned.

Other than what Apple claimed, what proof is there to that statement?

Apple would be more than happy for cross-licensing.

Which Apple are you talking about? Because the one in this topic is very anti cross licensing.

You comment is so wrong that it actually detracts from the argument, I would be embarrased to write such trash.

I'll just write what you wrote, but will fix the mistake in it. Your comment is so wrong that it actually detracts from the argument, I would be embarrased to write such trash.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[jfanning]

That would help a lot considering 60% of iPhone sales are now outside of the US, and nobody else uses CDMA (except S. Korea).

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[pipedwho]

How did this get modded +5, Insightful?

It is completely incorrect as shown in the 3 replies above this one.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[perryizgr8]

It could be a lot worse for Nokia if Apple is able to prove that the licensing fees Nokia requested from Apple for essential GSM patents turns out to be unreasonable. Nokia does hold GSM patents, which as part of a standard are required to be licensed under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms. If Apple can prove that Nokia requested unreasonable terms from Apple for the GSM patents, Nokia may be in trouble with the ETSI.

If anything good comes out of this for future patent encumbered standards, it could be that the courts may be left to define what fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory actually means. As Engadget states in their coverage:

In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is. source

It would be nice if these cases were looked at as clear reason why we really need patent reform, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

imo, this is the ONLY case in recent years that show how important patents really are and need no reform in this area. nokia (along with others like siemens, ericsson, etc) has spent billions of dollars into developing the technology that goes into your cellphone, whatever brand it is. if you want to use that tech and sell it to make a profit, you need to pay nokia. that sounds pretty fair to me. and you have to pay whatever they ask. if they ask too much, go use other tech like cdma. its not technically inferior or anything and is quite widely deployed.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[perryizgr8]

umm, no?
apple did not nearly 'reinvent mobile technology'. mobile tech is not ui and multi touch (and even that was done before by others). it is the chips, radio freq standards like hspa/gprs that are mobile tech. i guess the amount of research money nokia/siemens has put into gsm/gprs/hspa etc would be enough to buy out apple through a hostile takeover.
the only thing apple revolutionized in the cellphone market was marketing. they have perfected the art of selling and getting enormous heaps of praise for a locked-down, under-powered, over-priced, feature-lacking piece of shit.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[perryizgr8]

Fag.

No thanks; I don't smoke. I'm a Libra, not a Cancer.

Apple hasn't reinvented mobile technology, they've slapped a new UI on the existing one.

That or Apple has reinvented the mobile GUI, which is still more of an accomplishment than "slapped" implies.

but much much significantly less of an accomplishment than 'reinvented mobile technology' implies.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[perryizgr8]

weren' we talking about mobile TECHNOLOGY??? where does app-fucking-store and capacitive screen come into this?

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Critical Facilities]

and nobody else uses CDMA (except S. Korea).

Yeah. What was I thinking?

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[jfanning]

Uh huh. So an 18 month old article quoting the "CDMA Development Group" and a list of countries that are busy rolling out UMTS and LTE instead of going further with CDMA...

CDMA is a dead end.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Critical Facilities]

I see, so I'm guessing you chose not to read the page from Verizon's site showing the countries where their CDMA service is available, right? (needless to say, there are far more than the US and S. Korea). Listen, it's not lost on me that GSM has the larger footprint internationally, I am fully aware of that. I am simply illustrating that Apple wouldn't have to "reinvent wireless technology" if they were to get into a lawsuit/patent battle with Nokia.

It's conceivable that other CDMA oriented wireless providers (including EVDO providers) might be interested in partnering with a big player like Apple. It would allow them some traction to really get competitive in markets that are currently dominated by GSM. I realize it's a massive undertaking....but there's a lot of money to be made, so it's not that outlandish if done right (and in a reasonable time frame).

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[sznupi]

And you really think Nokia isn't responsible also for large part of current CDMA implementations? (plus other players; Apple has the biggest gripe with Nokia simply because Nokia is the largest, and developed the biggest slice of technologies used in mobile phones) Riiight. What do you think is the radio method used in UMTS?

"CDMA" (vs. "GSM") as used in the US is mostly just one technical term that was somehow hijacked by marketing, and carried over ever since.

Nokia poured billions over the years so that you can use your mobile phone. No other player had a problem with that fact - and there are much bigger than Apple, who would have much more to gain if Nokia case wasn't solid (since this is about radio interface, it doesn't really matter if that's "feature phone" or "smartphone"). Behind Nokia with their 37% of global sales there's Samsung at 21%, LG at 11%, Sony Ericsson at 5%, Motorola at 5%. Apple...not listed in such tables.

But we can resolve it ourselves. Nokia ships almost half a billion mobile phones annually (around 470 million, something like that); there's 80 million of Symbian smartphones in there. Since Symbian has 47% of smartphone market - we know how big it is, 170 million units. Apple has 15% of that, just 25 million units. Using annual sales of Nokia and their share, we know that total sales of mobile phones were around 1 billion 160 million units last year. Meaning Apple has 2%.

Now, we have here some manufacturer which sells very small number of devices, hence wouldn't need to spend that much in proper licenses for radio technology to which it didn't contribute at all...and what that manufacturer does is come to all the companies who wasted, it seems, many billions in actual research...and offers them some junk software patents. Wants to have "special" treatment. WTF?

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[sznupi]

CDMA roaming networks are shit. In contrast - I can't remember ever noticing lost GSM signal (other than underground, etc.), and I don't limit myself to large population centers...

Those "promising" CDMA operators which were making bold statements 1 or 2 years ago (at least those I heard and was curious about - mostly Central and Northern Europe)...died, in the meantime. Gone. At the least as far as consumer services are concerned, in all cases.
Only here and there "CDMA" method was brought to use as a means of stationary internet access; nothing more came out of it, really.

All this is beside the point anyway - Apple would have to license CDMA, too...

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[sznupi]

Are...you...serious? O_o

That would be at most a case for ATT suing Apple for not abiding their obligations as a manufacturer.

Anyway, Apple has the biggest gripe with Nokia just because Nokia contributed the most into you being able to have a mobile phone now...but they are not nearly the only such entity. Oh, uou thought they have nothing to do also with so called "CDMA"? What do you think is the radio method used in UMTS?

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[jfanning]

Are you serious? Most of those place listed were some little island in the middle of nowhere. Have fun roaming to most of them.

CDMA (as in the Verizon kind) is a total dead end. Everyone is dropping any future expansion CDMA for 4G and going with LTE. It is the only logical choice.

If you think anyone in Europe is seriously going to roll out a CDMA network I have a nice bridge to sell you.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[Critical Facilities]

Most of those place listed were some little island in the middle of nowhere

So Canada, Mexico, India, Brazil and China are little islands in the middle of nowhere, huh? My goodness, you are one dense individual. Why don't you take a look around and realize that despite what you seem to think, the world does not revolve around Europe. Honestly, we Americans tend to be horrible about thinking about things through our perspectives only, but you're definitely giving us a run for our money.

If you think anyone in Europe is seriously going to roll out a CDMA network I have a nice bridge to sell you.

CDMA is already there, dude. Maybe not in your neighborhood, but don't act like it doesn't exist.

Re:Hardly a mexican standoff

[jfanning]

The CDMA group are fudging their figures like crazy. Don't you get that? Even their map says "Coverage or trials". Trials being the operative word in this case.

Have a look at this and tell me how successful CDMA is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators

Article missed latest front: HTC 'suing' Apple

[FlorianMueller]

The Wired article on mobile patent lawsuits was, quite apparently, written just before the latest front was opened: HTC yesterday announced that it is now "suing" Apple.

However, at a closer look it becomes clear that HTC didn't file a lawsuit in the traditional meaning of the word, which would mean that they take Apple to a court of law. It is only a complaint with the US International Trade Commission. By contrast, Apple (in March) sued HTC in an actual court of law plus lodged a complaint with the International Trade Commission. Only lodging a complaint is rather weak. Fortune/CNN lists the five patents in play and points out that it's only a complaint, not a suit filed with a court, and is not impressed.

On my FOSS Patents blog I comment on developments concerning patents and Free and Open Source Software, and I see the squabble over video codecs as a closely related issue. In both cases, Apple is on the side of the large patent holders and Google favors "open" alternatives. Android is a Google-backed project, and as I explained in a three-part sequence of blog posts on video codecs, Google so far backs Theora and it might now try to establish VP8, after open-sourcing it (which may happen very soon), as a codec standard. Apple, however, backs MPEG LA's H.264 (even though Apple is only a small contributor to the MPEG patent pool; for an example, Apple contributed only one patent out of 1,135 to the H.264 pool).

There's nothing more unpleasant for a proprietary/closed-source vendor to deal with than free/open-source competition. Patents then come into play and can tilt the scales in favor of entrenched proprietary/closed-source players. Sometimes it's sufficient for the major patent holders just to ensure that the "free" alternative won't be completely free, neither completely free as in free beer nor as in free speech. The use of patents against vendors of Android-based phones mobile phone operating software will probably result in increased prices and possibly also in reduced functionality of Android-based phones. The use of patents against open-source video codecs, which Steve Jobs said would happen but without providing any specifics, would have a similar effect for Theora and, possibly, VP8.

Re:Article missed latest front: HTC 'suing' Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

You are drastically underestimating the seriousness of a complaint filed with the ITC. A favorable ruling at the ITC could keep *all* of the infringing products from being imported. How many iPhones are made in the United States? None. They are all imported. A favorable ruling from the ITC STOPS Apple from importing iPhones.

The ITC complaint is just as serious as a lawsuit. Any lawyer who treated it otherwise would be committing malpractice.

Re:Article missed latest front: HTC 'suing' Apple

[mahadiga]

HTC yesterday announced that it is now "suing" Apple.

I think Microsoft in disguise of HTC yesterday announced that it is now "suing" Apple.

Um, not quite.

[__aagbwg300]

non-practising entities [patent trolls]

While all patent trolls may be non-practicing entities (NPEs), not all NPEs are patent trolls. Individual inventors, the kind that don't have the spare four or five billion dollars necessary to build a processor lab, are NPEs and often unfairly get labelled trolls. Also, don't forget universities and government laboratories. Under the parent's definition of troll, anyone who invents something but doesn't follow through with marketing a product must necessarily be a troll. The intellectual property world is more complicated than that. Real trolls can be NPEs or companies trying to squeeze their competitors - in fact, the latter is much more common than the former.

Re:Um, not quite.

[tepples]

I wrote in another comment why I don't consider a fabless firm like ARM an NPE.

Re:Um, not quite.

[__aagbwg300]

Ha ha ha - you're other comment is correct. It is important to keep an eye out for spin when you hear the term "patent troll."

Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[FlorianMueller]

I'm not underestimating the theoretical authority of the ITC at all. Of course they could, if they decided to take action and if there were sufficient legal grounds, have a (theoretically) devastating effect on Apple.

But if HTC believes its patents are so powerful, why would HTC only lodge a complaint with the ITC, which is very cheap, while clearly shying away from filing a lawsuit? Apple sued in a court plus complained with the ITC; now HTC only responds to the cheaper and probably also slower one of the two alternatives. If they believed in the strength of their case, they would want to be in maximum control of their destiny and spend the several million dollars that a lawsuit in a regular court takes (in addition to the compaint).

Re:Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[Tim C]

Maybe they believe that legal action should be a last resort, not a first?

Re:Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[intheshelter]

Really? Do you really believe that they are holding back the dogs because they are trying to achieve sainthood? Come on. . ..

Re:Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

These things typically settle out-of-court. HTC may be doing this as a threat / warning.

Re:Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[jrumney]

But if HTC believes its patents are so powerful, why would HTC only lodge a complaint with the ITC, which is very cheap, while clearly shying away from filing a lawsuit?

Because their obligation to their shareholders is to maximize profit, not to line the pockets of lawyers.

Re:Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[FlorianMueller]

While it's true that settlement is the most common resolution of those disputes, the parties to such a dispute must do everything they can to build a strong position so they can get as much out of the settlement as possible. A settlement is an agreement that allows the parties to withdraw their respective lawsuits and complaints, and that also depends on which procedural avenues are taken (mere complaint vs. traditional lawsuit plus complaint).

Re:Complaint is weaker than complaint+lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think that the ITC is slower than a court? It's an administrative court, and administrative courts are almost *faster* than regular courts. The ITC court is no exception.

http://www.finnegan.com/ITCSection337InvestigationsPractice/

"ITC Section 337 cases have expedited procedural schedules. Most district courts provide two or more years to prepare for patent infringement trials (at least a year in the fastest courts), but ITC cases routinely proceed to trial about 10 months after filing the complaint. Since trials trigger settlements, the average time to settlement is fast in the ITC. The administrative law judges announce their initial decisions about three months after trial, the commission issues its final decision and any remedial orders about four months later, and the entire proceeding is typically completed in about 15-18 months."

Google does not

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, Nokia, and HTC manufacture cell phones, Google doesn't. I don't
see what the title of this post means.

Re:Google does not

[devjoe]

It was taken from the inaccurately titled Wired article (which also includes "vs. RIM," which was omitted from the Slashdot version of the story, quite rightly since they are not mentioned in this story as suing or being sued by any of these others, though they were in lawsuits with NTP, Kodak, and Motorola in the past).

Even taking Google (who, the article notes, is "not a party to this lawsuit") and RIM out, the headline is still wrong in that it implies everybody is fighting everybody, when it fact it is just Apple suing and/or being sued by Nokia and HTC.

Re:Google does not

[E IS mC(Square)]

It's very convenient to paint all of them with the same brush because that makes Apple look as bad as others, not more. While the fact is, this whole saga is started by apple and others had to get dragged into it.

Everybody was fine with each other until the jesus Jobs rolled in in his limo and started flinging shit on everybody.

but that's not the *big* problem

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money. Trolls have nothing to do with HTML5 not being able to recommend a video codec, and they've nothing to do with worries about how Microsoft will use their patents on .doc, XML, or Mono. Some trolls *do* practice their invention, like the mp3 guys that made a packet from trolling - and as a side-effect, completely insignificant to them, forced GNU/Linux distros to omit mp3 support.

To solve the social problems caused by software patents, we have to abolish them - tweaking the numbers to reduce the problems of mega corporations is not *our* job.

• Patent trolls
• Harm with neither litigation nor threats
• Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)

Re:but that's not the *big* problem

[walterbyrd]

Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money.

Wouldn't patent trolls be a much bigger problem for small companies, without lots of money, or large patent portfolios?

A company like Microsoft can drop a $100 million on a bogus lawsuit without a second thought. But, for a small company, with assets under $1 million, that might not be so easy.

If a small company were to sue to Microsoft over a patent violation, Microsoft would find 20 patent violations with which to counter sue. No matter who is right or wrong, Microsoft would win, just due to staying power.

Re:but that's not the *big* problem

[delinear]

As I understand it, they're a problem for large companies because you pretty much have to accede to the full extent of their demands or your product doesn't ship. That could cost you billions, which puts them in a prime position to really turn the screw. Small companies just aren't such a juicy target for trolls, because the chances are if you try to take them for serious money, they'd be out of business anyway, so they're as likely to just pull the product and, while they still might go out of business, at least deny the troll their loot. Trolls would much rather give the small company time to become a big company before they attack.

The lone inventor is not affected

[Anonymous Coward]

The lone inventor is not affected. If he's patented something that someone else is using, we have the following options:

1) They stole it. To do this, the lone inventor will have had to have shown their patent to someone. Stealing it is not possible because the number of lone inventors prohibits

2) They parallel invented it. In which case, either
a) it's obvious and not patentable
b) it's unfair of the lone inventor to lock someone out who also had the same idea

3) The patent was granted and they copied what the patent said. Unlikely. How many places read all the patents to see what's out there? Nobody, that's who.

The holes left for a lone inventor to be shafted unfairly after all those is pretty damn small. As it is, the chances of EVERYONE being shafted without trolling being banned is pretty damn high. Cost/benefit analysis: go with it.

Add to that the lone inventor is already shafted by a bigger entity using their "defensive" patent pool against the lone inventor (without a large warchest, pool of patents, and salaried law department), even where the lone inventor is shafted, there are bigger places to un-shaft him.

Re:The lone inventor is not affected

[Anonymous Coward]

1) They stole it. To do this, the lone inventor will have had to have shown their patent to someone.

Isn't it obvious that

lone inventor who comes up with something useful and wants to sell it to the big companies.

has to show his or her patent at said big companies?

Re:The lone inventor is not affected

[rpresser]

b) it's unfair of the lone inventor to lock someone out who also had the same idea

Hello?? That's the whole fucking point of patents, to get an exclusive right for using an invention, even if someone else has the same idea!!!

Re:The lone inventor is not affected

[pipedwho]

That is something that is more wrong than right with the patent system.

The #1 question: What Will Google Do?

[FlorianMueller]

The Wired article and most of the media reports and the comments here are focused on patent disputes between the hardware companies involved. But according to a recent announcement, Android is now a high-volume mobile phone operating system and everyone knows that it's a Google project.

Those vendors who, like HTC, decided to build smartphones running on Android had access to the program code on open-source terms. They may not have a formal contract in place with Google at all, or if there is one, it will be more focused on trademark rights because the software itself is under a free license. Still they probably all took a great deal of confidence from Google's backing of Android.

I don't mean to criticize Google for what it has (not) done yet: to step into the ring and bail out companies who took major business decisions based on their reliance upon a Google open-source project. But at some point in time, of which one can certainly argue that it hasn't come yet, there will be industry concern and also concern in the wider Free and Open Source Software community over the extent to which Google stands behind the open-source software it puts out. Google has a significant patent portfolio (small compared to the portfolios of IBM, Microsoft and even Apple, but still much bigger than that of HTC). Google could also pay royalties to patent holders given the important role that Android plays in its overall corporate strategy (Google could become a master licensee of the required patents and then grant sublicenses to vendors selling Android-based phones).

There are rumors that Google plans to open-source the VP8 video codec and it might happen very soon. Multimedia codecs are also a terrible patent minefield. Similarly as mobile phone operating software, they are an OEM component, meaning others incorporate them into their commercial products. Again, it's too early to blame Google for anything here, but the fact that Google doesn't try to bail out the vendors that propagate its Android software raises questions and if Google indeed does open-source VP8, industry will probably want to know about the patent situation. I believe that Google should then at the very least publish an analysis of the patent situation surrounding VP8, including the reasons why Google believes it doesn't infringe on any of the patents held by the MPEG LA pool. That's just one way to look at it. Commercial vendors may, based on the Android experience, actually ask Google for the possibility of an agreement under which Google would hold them harmless of patent infringement suits.

Again, the jury is still out on Google and patent problems with its open-source software, but I believe it's in Google's own best interest to counter an impression that Google puts out open-source projects it effectively controls and lets others take not only the risk that is connected with hardware manufacturing but also, even worse in my view, the risk related to possible patent infringement. It would come down to a game of "if Google wins, it wins; if Google loses (due to patents), its hardware partners lose."

I will be following those future developments closely on my FOSS Patents blog covering open-source patent issues. Now it's still too early to claim Google isn't committed to protecting its open-source initiatives.

Re:The #1 question: What Will Google Do?

[delinear]

I don't believe HTC wouldn't have a formal contract in place with Google over the use of Android - they're not only a massive partner with a whole range of Android phones of their own, they even produce Google's physical phone product for them.

Re:The #1 question: What Will Google Do?

[FlorianMueller]

I don't believe HTC wouldn't have a formal contract in place with Google over the use of Android - they're not only a massive partner with a whole range of Android phones of their own, they even produce Google's physical phone product for them.

I understand your reasoning and you may very well be right, but given that the Android software is available on Free and Open Source Software terms, I wanted to give Google the benefit of the doubt. Letting down a formal licensee would be even worse than letting down independent parties using the software on open-source terms, although (as I said) Google will at some point have to consider whether it can successfully initiate and promote open-source projects if it stays on the sidelines when patent issues come up. By doing so forever (so far, we don't know yet what they'll do), Google would actually give a major strategic advantage to proprietary competitors.

Apple can have the GSM patents on the RAND

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple can have the GSM patents on the RAND when they agree to be part of the patent pool other GSM operators are in: where they pay by sharing their patents.

Apple doesn't want to pay the fee.

Why should Apple get a bye on it?

Re:Apple can have the GSM patents on the RAND

[FlorianMueller]

I for my part didn't mean to say that Nokia is being unreasonably by asking Apple to either share its patents or otherwise asserting them against them. However, I did stress that this shows how limited the value of patents can be in an area of incremental innovation: Apple undoubtedly did some very innovative things in recent years and one would hope that the patent system serves to help such innovators. But since Apple's innovations can only be put to use on top of existing technologies (incremental innovation), they may at the end of the dispute with Nokia indeed having to cede all of their patents to earlier market entrants, in which case the patent system fails to protect the more recent innovator.

Re:Apple can have the GSM patents on the RAND

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Why should Apple get a bye on it?

Because it is slashdot's most favorite company?

I just hope Nokia and HTC win their cases against the biggest maafia company we know on the planet.

Re:Apple can have the GSM patents on the RAND

[delinear]

While I don't disagree with your reasoning, consider that companies are already innovating on the back of Apple's innovations (which in turn were only possible due to the earlier innovations of other companies), and Apple is seeking to prevent those companies from doing so (well, if the reports of them firing the first volley by suing HTC are correct, I have to admit I've not been following developments here closely). If this shows anything, it's that the patent system is actually a hindrance in a field where the technology naturally wants to advance at lightnight speed.

Fabless companies

[tepples]

As elewton hinted, the designation "troll" or "nonpracticing entity" wouldn't apply to a fabless company like ARM, which sells a patent license and a know-how license as a set. Nor would it apply to MPEG-LA, many of whose members sell their own codec implementations.

Begun, the patent wars have.

[mjwx]

Begun, the patent wars have and it will not be good for any of us.

Yes, big patent holders are a big problem

[FlorianMueller]

Ciaran, we fought together against the proposed EU software patent law years ago and I agree that most if not all of the problems you mention would go away if legislators abolish software patents entirely (I said "most if not all" because a very small part of those mobile patents may be hardware, not software, patents).

No doubt about the fundamental problem that trolls represent but there's a key difference between them and the big patent holders: a troll will at the end of the day just want to make money. It's a hold-up but if you cough up the money, the troll moves on to the next victim. By contrast, if a major patent holder such as Apple determines that no one else (except those who have key patents Apple absolutely needs) should be able to offer certain functionality, such as some multitouch features, then you can't buy out the market leader: the potential licensees will never have an economic basis on which they could offer enough that Apple would decide to give up some key competitive advantage.

Therefore, it's important to keep a close eye on what the major patent holders are doing, on how they are using their patents. IBM has the biggest patent portfolio of all and unfortunately bullies other companies with it. Apple may not be a contributor to the pool it says will go after Theora and other open-source codecs, but the fact that Steve Jobs knows about such plans and writes about them already says something. Then there are Microsoft's patents, such as the FAT patents. There's no litigation going on regarding those but HTC did agree to pay Microsoft patent royalties. All of those developments are important to watch, and it's key to make distinctions between different ways in which companies can use a patent. For an example, a license agreement (even though it's regrettable if unintentional infringers have to pay for something just because someone else previously took out a patent) is always a better outcome than a patent holder's refusal to negotiate at all.

Concerning abolition, I wish you best of luck with your effort but as long as only the Free and Open Source Software community is seriously committed to the cause while small and especially medium-sized businesses aren't (if they really wanted to get rid of software patents, they'd donate serious money to the FFII or to your campaign), I can't see how it's going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, I'm now increasingly focused on the way those patents get used, not because I like but because I have to recognize the fact that they exist now and will exist for much longer, unfortunately.

Re:Yes, big patent holders are a big problem

[Altus]

Your right, Apple doesn't have any patents in the pool and the fact that Steve Jobs talked about possible legal action only indicates that Apple bothered to do some research on the legal viability of various codecs before choosing a backer.

Look, Apple may do some shit that we don't like here, but we don't need to make shit up. If you think it "Says something" that Steve Jobs talked about the legal viability of a codec then tell us what it says. Being vague and trying to create an evil enemy where none exists is just dishonest and weakens the rest of your comment.

Re:Yes, big patent holders are a big problem

[FlorianMueller]

Your right, Apple doesn't have any patents in the pool

That's not known. I just said they need not be a contributor to the pool -- but they might be. Steve Jobs didn't rule out either possibility.

If you think it "Says something" that Steve Jobs talked about the legal viability of a codec then tell us what it says. Being vague and trying to create an evil enemy where none exists is just dishonest and weakens the rest of your comment.

Sorry that I had not been more specific on that one. I meant to say that the fact that Apple is in the know (since not even the developers of Theora had an idea that such a pool was being formed) suggests that Apple is at least in some kind of contact with that pool and the possible assertion of patents by that pool, whether or not Apple is directly involved with it, against Theora and other open-source codecs would quite apparently be conducive to Apple's codec strategy. There's certainly no indication that Apple would dislike legal action against open-source codecs.

There can be only one

[nurb432]

And eventually we will have a single company that holds all the cards, for everything.

Multinationals

[NocturnHimtatagon]

Multinationals just build their own platforms. Why bother getting locking in a petty fight?

Patent system is obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent laws need to get a COMPLETE re-write. They no longer work in todays world. They are hindering progress and technology. Either that or they need to become MUCH more expensive to file and be awarded.

Personally I think that each patent that is granted should come with a pre-set royalty fee. The patent is available for anyone to use, but anyone uses it knows a pre-set amount (a small percentage) they will need to pay based on how much they use it. Everyone wins, the person/company that filed/developed it and the person/company that put it to use and made our world better with it.

What are the features beign infringed?

[s.whiplash]

What are the features that Apple, or the other companies, say are being infringed?

I have been using a Windows based smart phone for 7+ years and before that a Palm based smart phone for 4 years. There isn't anything new in the Apple phone that I haven't been doing for 6+ years, except for flinging your thumb to go to the next screen, but Palm was doing screen gestures 7 years ago. Plus other applications and systems have been doing similar things for a long time also.

Apple, and to an extent other companies, are great at marketing, by telling you they have all of this new technology, but non of it is really new of that different then what has been available for years.

Re:What are the features beign infringed?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What are the features that Apple, or the other companies, say are being infringed?

In the case of Apple, they have patents on the multi-touch interface and the other companies did not license that interface before implementing it.

In the case of Nokia, they are part of a consortium that holds basic patents on cell phone technology including antenna configurations and cell tower switching algorithms necessary to build any cell phone that uses existing towers.

You can sum the case up as, both companies are infringing patents. Nokia says Apple's patents aren't as valuable but went ahead and infringed them anyway. Apple says Nokia is treating them unfairly by demanding more money and license to Apple's patents when they charges less to other phone makers, so they made their iPhone anyway infringing patents and will go to court to only have to pay the same as everyone else. And it is now obvious even to a child that our patent system and the practice of implementing patented non-licensed technologies in basic and necessary infrastructure is completely messed up and needs to be re-legislated by people who give a damn about what is best for the people and not big companies.

Re:What are the features beign infringed?

[mjwx]

I have been using a Windows based smart phone for 7+ years and before that a Palm based smart phone for 4 years. There isn't anything new in the Apple phone that I haven't been doing for 6+ years, except for flinging your thumb to go to the next screen, but Palm was doing screen gestures 7 years ago. Plus other applications and systems have been doing similar things for a long time also.

Apple didn't have to invent anything, they only had to patent it. I understand Oxford has made a change to the dictionary.

In no va tion: v, The act of expensive litigation against ones competitors.

Re:What are the features beign infringed?

[sznupi]

Nobody except Apple seems to mind Nokia behaviour (or the GSM consortium, generally) - they either pay full price, or throw their own patents (covering technology which took many billions to develop) into the jar. And others would have much more to gain if Nokia position wasn't solid - while Apple has only 2% of sales, (put here who knows how many other companies having more than 2%), SE & Motorola have both 5%, LG 11%, Samsung 20%; behind 37% of Nokia

Some small player (selling relativelly small number of radio modules) gets greedy, comes in with few software patents and wants to be treated "better"...

One more reason to stay away from smartphones

[ctrl-alt-canc]

It seems that the parties involved (Nokia, HTC, Apple, Blackberry, etc.) are more busy fighting for the money rather than taking care of developing OS and applications. No reasons for me to waste money for replacing my old cellphone and my trusted Filofax with a smartphone.

Re:One more reason to stay away from smartphones

[hallucinogen]

If you spent over 40 billion EUR in R&D (like Nokia) I'm sure you'd sue as well if you thought that somebody was stealing your innovation (like Apple). Thankfully this isn't about "mind share" but actual merits. Nokia just might end up killing Apple's mobile ventures. As a Finn I'm totally rooting for Nokia because they make up a large chunk of our nation's GDP.

Re:One more reason to stay away from smartphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I agree that the companies have not devoted enough effort to meeting my needs, keep in mind that both of us are not even droplets in the mist to these behemoths so they ignore us completely until we either reach sufficient density to become either parasites upon them or symbiants to them.

Re:One more reason to stay away from smartphones

[PixelScuba]

Why do I picture you pulling out and talking on a DynaTac?

Re:One more reason to stay away from smartphones

[mgblst]

You shouldn't be rooting for Nokia, they fucked up, and if it was up to them we would still be stuck in the dark ages of smartphones.

They focus too much on the hardware, which most poeple do not care about, and had absolute shit software.

It took a computer company to come along and revolutionise the industry... what a joke.

I put them in the same basket as Palm, they lost the plot along the way, went from greatnest to mediocre.

Now, Nokia have done amazing things, and invented some great technology. They are, however, in a bind, because they already license this tech to other firms, and want to change the terms they license it to Apple. This is unfair, and why they don't have such a big case. There are laws against it.

Nokia have been a dominant bully for a longtime, and help back advances in phones.

Re:One more reason to stay away from smartphones

[sznupi]

How is that in any way relevant to validity of Nokia multibillion contributions which made present mobile phones possible?

Oh, and Apple is the one who claims they get an unfair deal. No other manufacturer of mobile phones (that's all that matters, simply "mobile phone", since this is about radio interface) has a problem with Nokia - and they stand to benefit much, much more than Apple (at only 2% of sales). The next biggest manufacturer after Nokia (37%) is Samsung with 20%. After that LG with 11%, SE and Motorola both with 5%...and who knows how many other companies untill you get to Apple.

Apple simply got greedy and thinks the rules don't apply to them.

Oh, and you are a slime not caring about the future of humanity if you think that what Nokia does right now is not monumental. At the end of 2008 there was a little over 3 billion mobile subscibers worldwide. Now it's probably close to 5 billion (it was 4.6 at the end of 2009). Nokia is a large part of enabling that. Apple...doesn't even want to. Their total number of manufactured mobile phones, ever, is an order of magnitude less than what Nokia ships annually.

Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[FlorianMueller]

I don't mean to downplay the problem that patent trolls / non-producing entites represent, but they're a feature not a bug of the patent system, as Carlo Piana, a European lawyer specialized on Free and Open Source Software matters, recently said on Twitter. The proponents of this kind of patent system simply want trolls to exist, even though they will from time to time have problems with them themselves.

But a troll just wants to make the money. It's a hold-up situation if you face a troll, but if you cough up the money, he'll leave you alone and focus on the next victim. Even though $600 million is a huge amount, RIM (the BlackBerry maker) not only survived but actually generated huge levels of profits ever since.

By contrast, if Apple decides that no one else should use certain multitouch and other functionality, then only those with a really massive patent arsenal ("mutually assured destruction"), which is what Nokia may indeed have, will be able to solve the problem through cross-licensing. But it's economically practically impossible to solve the problem by offering Apple a check because the strategic value of maintaining a certain competitive advantage is so valuable to the market leader that smaller players can't solve the problem by paying. So if Apple insists on its rights, it can tell vendors such as HTC to stop providing certain functionality, period. Unconditionally. No negotiation. Cease and desist. The only chance then may be that if you can prove a dominant position, antitrust law could be used to achieve compulsory licensing. In Apple's case, that would be very difficult to say the least...

Again, I don't mean to downplay the problem with patent trolls, but in order to ensure that incremental innovation can take place for the benefit of consumers, it's key to watch what the large patent holders are doing, starting with the biggest patent bully on the block, IBM, but also looking at everything else that's going on.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[DJRumpy]

Rather than allow blackmail situations, why not simply put a time limit on the length of time that they can file lawsuits for patent violations in the past? If they fail to exercise that right within a reasonable amount of time, then they loose the right to sue for damages for past infringement? Is that too simple a solution?

It would stop these submarine issues from popping up years after products have been out and used in the market.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[FlorianMueller]

Backroyalties (license fees for past infringement) -- or the equivalent in case of a lawsuit, damages for past infringement -- certainly add to the problem, but the biggest leverage a patent troll can have is the ability to force an "infringer" to discontinue shipping a key product (or several key products at the same time). That's when a company's ability to stay in business becomes seriously endangered and that's the perfect basis for a hold-up.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[DJRumpy]

So perhaps a stipulation that they cannot force a business to interrupt operations based on a patent that has passed it's 'grace period' for claims?

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[FlorianMueller]

So perhaps a stipulation that they cannot force a business to interrupt operations based on a patent that has passed it's 'grace period' for claims?

Sorry but it's not clear to me what you propose. In particular, what do you mean by "a patent that has passed"? Software patents can be vaild for up to 20 years (if periodic renewal fees are paid). For most software patents that's longer than the commercially relevant period anyway, and during those 20 years the patent holder (provided that renewal fees are always paid) can always use them to disrupt a business. There can be some exceptions where a patent holder may lose the entitlement to assert a patent because of tolerating a known infringement for very long, but that's a different thing.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[fermion]

IBM has never been able to stop anyone from innovating based on patents. In fact, I believe that since IBM has so many patents, they are free to innovate without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. In your example, the lack of patents allowed a parasite to sue RIM. This does not often happen to IBM.

IBM has innovated to remain a relevant company. Unlike most companies, they do not focus on a product, say typewriters, and then cry to government for support when typewriters are no longer necessary. Well, then do, but they also try to figure out what else they can do. And when something completely falls through, like microcomputers, they move on. Sure they are an agressive company, but their patents relate to real products, and cannot be compared to the people who sued RIM.

In the current case, the issue is keeping people out of the industry. There is a cartel of phone producing manufacturers that are in cahoots with the mobile operators. This cartel has insured that phones produced provide revenue streams for the mobile operators, rather than innovative phones for the consumer. Like it or not, the iPhone broke this cartel and provided value for the consumer. Look at the $20 data plan I got from AT&T on the first iPhone. Look at the $30 data plan for iPad, while verizon wants $60 and cricket wants $40. Those other plans may allow tethering, but the also have data limits.

In the same way that it is credible to believe that MS was at least partially behind the SCO suits, it is plausible to believe that these current round of mobile platform suits are at the bequest of the mobile carriers. Because even if, when all this is over, Nokia is still majority player, with RIM, Apple, HP and Google sharing the rest, the market will be reconfigured in such a way that profits are going to be harder to come buy. Just look at Google Nexus one. A few years ago the $200 price tag with contract and draconian termination fees would not hav been an issue. Those were practically the terms under which I bought my Razr. And $500 for the unlocked version, for a phone that was supposed to revolutionize the market by providing an open phone, is clearly a price point meant to keep the mobile carriers relevant. HTC, like most phone makers, have no incentive to make a phone consumers want and can afford, rather than the phone the carriers want and can upsell.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Rather than allow blackmail situations, why not simply put a time limit on the length of time that they can file lawsuits for patent violations in the past? If they fail to exercise that right within a reasonable amount of time, then they loose the right to sue for damages for past infringement? Is that too simple a solution?

How does that address the issue with Apple or Nokia? They both asserted their rights in a timely fashion, when someone violated the patent. Rather the problem as I see it is that Nokia had patents on technologies, and the whole industry was built up upon those patents, including infrastructure vital to our national security and basic utilities (face it cell phone service is a basic utility now necessary for doing business and individual safety). If Nokia refuses to license their patents to some companies or uses those patents to prevent companies from doing business except on their terms, it hurts innovation. Why would any company dump R&D into innovations in cell phones if Nokia is just going to demand they let Nokia use the patents just to get into the game? And so innovation is no longer profitable.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[DJRumpy]

I wondering why they don't put a limit on the amount of time that a patent holder can sue another for infringement. Continue to allow the 20 (+) years to hold and own the patent, and collect royalties, but limit the amount of time (create a window of time) that a patent holder can sue an individual or company that is infringing. If that time passes, they would lose the option to sue for lost damages, but the infringing company woud have to purchase the rights going forward.

That would prevent situations like RIM where they had a huge ongoing business threatened by a torpedo patent. Another example is JPG patent that was tried a few years ago.

These patent trolls sit and wait until a business becomes profitable and rather large, and then torpedo them with a patent which results in something akin to blackmail if they want to keep their business.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[DJRumpy]

I was responding to the parents topic of Patent Trolls. As to your question, IF apple decided to withhold it's touch patents is purely hypothetical. I would imagine such cases would be invested as anti-competitive as they would be using unfair market advantage.

I don't think any of the companies involved have refused outright to license their technologies, but I believe the suite from Apple claims that Nokia was demanding more money from Apple than from other vendors, which is the basis of the lawsuit.

If that is true, I would imagine that existing law would handle such situations (anticompetitive).

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As to your question, IF apple decided to withhold it's touch patents is purely hypothetical. I would imagine such cases would be invested as anti-competitive as they would be using unfair market advantage.

That's the whole point of patents. You invest in inventing something and in return a patent grants you an exclusive monopoly to that technology for a limited time. The idea is to motivate investment in innovation. Apple withholding multitouch is the patent system working as intended. Apple licensing it inequitably to others would be a problem if they were to go that route.

I don't think any of the companies involved have refused outright to license their technologies, but I believe the suite from Apple claims that Nokia was demanding more money from Apple than from other vendors, which is the basis of the lawsuit.

Actually, Apple refused to license their patent as part of the payment instead of all of it. Nokia refused to license their patent for the same cost it did to others, but required Apple to also give up their patents as well.

If that is true, I would imagine that existing law would handle such situations (anticompetitive).

Competition law does not really apply for the most part, at least not in the traditional sense. It's not illegal to gain and use a monopoly for profit via patents.

Re:Big patent holders are still the bigger problem

[FlorianMueller]

Now I understand what you mean in general but I still can't see how one could make this work. There can be great ideas from a perspective of what would be fair and desirable but transforming them into a workable rule that works under the law is not always possible.

Assuming a patent relates to something that's new (which is the way it should be but patent offices often fail to find prior art), then it's logically inevitable that at the beginning (after the grant of the patent) there won't be anyone from whom the patent holder could collect royalties. Then it takes time for a new market entrant (such as RIM in the BlackBerry case) to build a business. You can't expect a patent holder to be aware of every little guy out there potentially infringing on his patent. It won't even be possible for the patent holder to monitor the entire market at all times, but even if the patent holder identifies an infringement, there's no alternative to letting the patent holder decide when the time has come to assert the patent. Given the cost of legal work (even before you go to court, but especially if you do), the patent holder may indeed determine that an identified infringer is (at least for the time being) too small to justify the enormous cost of enforcing the patent.

What would be possible (and has been more or less proposed as part of a patent reform initiative) is to do away with the right of patent holders to obtain injunctive relief. That would amount to what you say about a right to collect royalties.

I believe this would indeed be an improvement, but only if it's also ensured that damages are calculated on a reasonable basis, considering that a complex information technology product (such as a BlackBerry) consists of a very large number of potentially patentable elements.

What the critics of this idea not to allow injunctions say is that in the event of a patent dispute with a very large patent holder and a small one suing each other, the ability to obtain an injunction may be the only major leverage that the little guy can have because it would obviously hurt the big company if it has to stop (or has to fear a potential obligation to stop) selling an important product. I just wanted to mention that argument for the sake of completeness. I still think it would be better to do away with injunctions in the IT sector. In the pharma sector, injunctions are very much required, however, based on what I have read. That's often the problem with patent reform: different industries have different need. In IT, it's about incremental innovation and potentially many patents that are relevant to a single product. In pharma, the number of relevant patents per product is very low.

NPE defined

[tepples]

A nonpracticing entity is an entity that controls a patent but can't name any products or services that it makes or sells based on this patent. By "make", I don't necessarily mean manufacturing; it could include contracting the manufacturing out to a third party. See my other comment.

RAND == terms and royalties spelled out up front

[tepples]

In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is.

The FSF agrees that the term is confusing and proposes the alternate term "uniform fee only" to describe a public offer of a patent license with all the terms and royalties spelled out up front.

jrumney, it's the opposite of what you say

[FlorianMueller]

jrumney wrote:

Because their obligation to their shareholders is to maximize profit, not to line the pockets of lawyers.

Contrary to what you suggest, that is the very reason for which HTC would, if it believed in its case, use all of the legal means at its disposal to win. The lawsuit would cost a few million dollars, which is neither a large amount compared to the market we're talking about nor compared to what's at stake in the patent war with Apple, which could force HTC out of the Android-based phone business entirely.

Re:jrumney, it's the opposite of what you say

[Anonymous Coward]

jrumney wrote:

Because their obligation to their shareholders is to maximize profit, not to line the pockets of lawyers.

Contrary to what you suggest, that is the very reason for which HTC would, if it believed in its case, use all of the legal means at its disposal to win. The lawsuit would cost a few million dollars, which is neither a large amount compared to the market we're talking about nor compared to what's at stake in the patent war with Apple, which could force HTC out of the Android-based phone business entirely.

Close, they'd not only have to believe they were right, they'd also have to believe the court system works and would reach the right decision.

Re:jrumney, it's the opposite of what you say

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, as they're a Taiwanese company, and Apple is a US company, is pretty unlikely in the US.

IBM indeed uses patents to shut out competition

[FlorianMueller]

IBM has never been able to stop anyone from innovating based on patents.

IBM has a long history of using patents anticompetitively. There was a company named PSI against which IBM litigated and ultimately IBM bought that company just to shut out competition, but by asserting patents they were able to force PSI's shareholders to sell out. And a more recent example in that tradition: Have you seen the exchange of letters (two in each direction) between IBM and TurboHercules? They use patents to defend their mainframe monopoly. TurboHercules only inquired about the possibility of letting its customers run z/OS (the proprietary mainframe operating system) on the Hercules open-source emulator. They didn't ask about patents or anything, just about software licensing. IBM then claimed that it's an "infringing platform".

In fact, I believe that since IBM has so many patents, they are free to innovate without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. In your example, the lack of patents allowed a parasite to sue RIM. This does not often happen to IBM.

Sorry to say so, but this is completely off base. Against a non-producing entity, no patent portfolio of any size helps you. If RIM had had the same patent portfolio as IBM, or even one that's ten times bigger, it would not have made a difference because they couldn't have used their patents against that non-producing entity. Your own patents will only serve as a deterrent if the aggressor has products on the market and if you own patents to prevent the further sale of those products. Since a troll such as the entity that sued RIM doesn't have products of its own, there's just no way you can ever use a patent against them for retaliatory purposes.

Sure they are an agressive company, but their patents relate to real products, and cannot be compared to the people who sued RIM.

The question of why someone obtains those patents is now more of an ethical question than the really relevant practical question. For someone who faces a patent infringement allegation, it's even worse (for the reasons I explained in a previous post) to be dealing with a strategic patent holder than with a troll, since the latter will "only" want money but the strategic owner may want to shut out competition. Even apart from that, if you have a product and someone holds a patent against you, does it make the problem smaller that you know it's a sort of more legitimate patent holder than a troll? What matters is the impact it will have on your business.

Simple Solution to patent squatters.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a company is awarded a patent they have 1 year to start producing or work out production with another company. If they fail to do so they have to submit documentation of their efforts to do so over the past year and pay a processing fee for such. If the finding is that they have not made a reasonable effort to start producing the patent, then the patent become open technology that anyone can use. One year is more than enough time in most cases to start production of something, and in cases where it is not this gives them the oppertunity to prove they are working towards production. This needs to be proactive, otherwise large companies would get a huge jump on small companies as they would have the resources to determine if a patent is being developed easier, where as proactively smaller companies could afford to look at the patent release list and make something of it. Since small companies are more dynamic they could move fast and build up before large companies snuffed the out, adding to competative practices and hopefully cutting into the oversized corperations that are forming.

Re:Simple Solution to patent squatters.

[perryizgr8]

nokia is no patent squatter. they literally made the tech all phones and lots of exchanges and servers use. this episode shows us that the patent system is not yet totally broken. that there exists a case where it can be used for a just purpose.

I wasn't arguing the legality, just the fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't arguing the legality, just the fairness.

Funny that you didn't want to see this. If "legal" is your only criteria for whether we have patents, then close the patent office down and refuse all patents for being "obvious".

Legally: fine.

Unfair? Yes. But you don't care about fair.

Three Patents per year per company

[r0n0c]

From here on out, each company is allowed to file for three patents per year, on what they believe are their most innovative advances. Better make them count.

Re:Three Patents per year per company

[sznupi]

Shell companies are such a useful thing...

What do you think NDAs are for?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think NDAs are for? And, unlike a patent, an NDA NEVER ENDS.

If you're showing your stuff to others without an NDA, you're a moron.

more like...

[perryizgr8]

apple vs (nokia + google + htc)