Slashdot Mirror
Technicolor Takes Aim At Apple, Samsung, Others for Patent Infringement
Master Moose sends this quote from a Bloomberg report:
"When Apple's next iPhone hits store shelves, Technicolor's engineers will rush to get the handset — not to make calls or play games, but to rip it apart. Technicolor, an unprofitable French company that invented the process for color movies used in The Wizard of Oz and countless other classics, plans to cash in on its 40,000 video, audio and optics patents to turn its fortunes around. The company has a team of 220 people dissecting every new smartphone and tablet from industry goliaths such as Apple, Samsung Electronics and HTC for patent infringements. Although Technicolor signed its first licensing deal in the 1950s, de Russe [executive vice-president of intellectual property at Technicolor] said, 'it feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are interesting.' Patent licensing is the most profitable business of the company."
It's black and white, so ultra-retro. All the hipsters will love it.
Although Technicolor signed its first licensing deal in the 1950s, de Russe [executive vice-president of intellectual property at Technicolor] said, 'it feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are interesting.' Patent licensing is the most profitable business of the company."
For some those dreams are a nightmare.
Not that Apple, et. al., are innocent by any means, but WTF has Technicolor contributed to humanity in the past twenty years??
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
This will illustrate very clearly how the system it broken. It's not about abstract computer science concepts. It's not about things the jury cannot understand. (Although those optics patents might be highly technical.) It will show beyond doubt how a has been company is suing innovative new companies, in a different era, even different century, just because they can. And . . it's the most profitable business of the company!
Sickening.
But it is even more clear than Microsoft claiming patents that cover Linux or Android, and then claiming Linux or Android are building on Microsoft innovations.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
' Patent licensing was the most profitable business of the company."
...and don't even think of using curved screens!!!
Just to be clear for those that are easily confused, Technicolor was invented in America and is named after MIT. From Wikipedia:
The Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation was founded in Boston in 1914 (incorporated in Maine in 1915) by Herbert Kalmus, Daniel Frost Comstock, and W. Burton Wescott. The "Tech" in the company's name was inspired by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Kalmus received his undergraduate degree and was later an instructor. Technicolor, Inc. was chartered in Delaware in 1921.
Although Technicolor signed its first licensing deal in the 1950s, de Russe [executive vice-president of intellectual property at Technicolor] said, 'it feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are interesting.' Patent licensing is the most profitable business of the company."
Dude has it wrong. Being a Patent Lawyer is the most Profitable Business.
Be seeing you...
The idea that one can patent or copyright an idea is silly. Only the state could come up with such a vicious construct to stiffle innovation, competition and expression.
Imagine if someone had copyrighted words. You wouldnt be able to talk.
Humans are copying machine by definition. Wait till we get brain implants and lawyers will start making pay for our own memories of movies and songs.
In the latest re-re-re-release of Wizard Of Oz 3DD, they digitally innovate a new character, Dorothy, Tin Man, Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion, Toto and the new superhero, Mister Potter's Patent Lawyer.
The Wicked Witch Of the West is digitally morphed with Richard Stallman's equally ugly visage.
Motorola (first mobile call 1973) are being sued by Microsoft (formed 1976) because, whilst clearly they are the newbies in this area, each and every time the obvious sequence of events is brought up out come the naysaysers whining about all Motorolas relevant patents having expired. So, these jerks with their '50s technology is somehow relevant, how?
I would be cartoon knee-knocking scared if I ever "invented" and popular and revolutionary product. It's basically like a zombie movie with these patent suits. They wait for success and then pop out of the ground in hoards.
It doesn't matter whether it's Technicolor, a university, a big tech company, a small tech company, or a patent troll who owns an obvious patent. An obvious patent gives someone a right to prevent someone else from implementing an idea, when the originator of the patent contributed nothing.
Now you *might* be able to ameliorate the impact of obvious patents through various means, but they are by their nature immoral and economically inefficient. Immoral because they give a person a right to extract money from someone else without doing anything to earn it. Inefficient because they cause people to put time/energy/money into obtaining these obvious patents so they can profit form them.
But there * IS * something wrong with 40-year-old patents.
The idea that a company can remain solvent in perpetuity doing nothing but simply licensing out ancient IP and suing those who violate said IP rights is an incredible bastardization of Capitalism.
... that I'm having trouble articulating.
On one hand, you have these companies using patents, an abstract barrier, to make money. On the other hand, they are sniffing out violations by means of reverse engineering. This is an act that, if many big companies had their way, would also be forbidden. Another abstract barrier. Something doesn't add up, but I can't flesh it out. I figured I'd drop this incomplete thought in case someone wanted to pick it up and run with it.
...to pay attention to the man behind the curtain?
The good that would come out of this is if the government kills patent trolls and sharply limits patents both in time and scope.
You came in at the wrong time. The rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are broken. They're still not interesting.
Technicolor wants to sue companies to force them to license their patents. (this is how the patent system is supposed to work)
Apple wants to sue companies to prevent them from creating competitive products (THIS is an example of a broken patent system)
Your argument doesn't wash. That the company is a "has been" in your opinion isn't here or there. What's shown is the patents had value, in that they were bought from somebody who invented. And so it follows the patent system encourages invention.
Not saying I'm not sick of the whole business just like you are, I'm only pointing out why your idea doesn't get traction in the courts and in the legislature. You're displaying perspective blindness, not an economic example of a broken patent system. And it's the latter we have to show if we're going to get anywhere.
The patent system is supposed to exist to allow inventors to have time to get their product to market and not have some giant company swoop in with their own development lab and get a copy of their product to market before the inventor even has a chance. In the event the inventor does not have the resources to get it to market, or you have an idea that would incorporate with the inventors idea but wouldn't directly compete with his product, he can license the patent to you so you can make your own product. Or he can out-right sell the patent to you. The patent system was not intended to protect an idea for eternity, being sold from corporation to corporation for centuries so every device ever invented would forever be beholden to some patent clearinghouse that had absolutely nothing to do with inventing anything even remotely relevant to anything modern. Do any of the people that had anything to do with whatever patents technicolor is going to sue for even work there anymore? Are they even alive? How much did the actual talent make for coming up with the patent? $10? The guy that invented the laser used in Blueray got a $100 giftcard and a plaque. (no, I'm not kidding)
Well, at least it's Apple. Fuck them, they deserve it.
Technicolor wants to sue companies to force them to license their patents. (this is how the patent system is supposed to work)
Apple wants to sue companies to prevent them from creating competitive products (THIS is an example of a broken patent system)
What? You have it completely backwards.
The patent system is exactly designed to prevent the creation of competing products. You invent something and you get to sell that thing exclusively for a limited time, in return for donating the "secret" of its construction to the public domain at the end of that period.
It's the concept of passively sitting on a idea and then trying to extort money from anyone who actually brings a product to market that stifles innovation and acts against the interests of society. If I had my way, the patent system would be use-it-or-lose-it. If you don't make a genuine effort to utilize a patent, you'd have to sell it (not license it) to someone who will or it would become void.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
and then:
I'd hate to see how their other efforts are going.
This shows exactly why the systems works.
Technicolor invented a bunch of stuff. Other people used it without permission, Now they have recourse.
It's not like Apple can't do a patent search.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wouldn't their dismantling the device be a violation of the DMCA with the intent to reverse engineer so they have grounds for the suit?
"The patent system is supposed to exist to allow inventors to have time to get their product to market"
wrong wrong WRONG.
The patent system is design so inventor have control of what they want to do with their patent.
If that means sitting on it, then so be it. If that means selling it to a company then so be it.
"The patent system was not intended to protect an idea for eternity, "
And it doesn't.
" How much did the actual talent make for coming up with the patent? $10?"
irrelevant.
" The guy that invented the laser used in Blueray got a $100 giftcard and a plaque"
and his paycheck he got every month.
He worked to invent something for a company that paid him. Irrelevant to the conversation.
I wrote coed that saved a company a billion a year. I got a football and 1000 dollar bonus.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So, as an inventor, would you dare use your own invention, or keep it to yourself lest you be sued for patent infringement?
Of course the patent system is broken. It's not for the inventors and entrepeneurs anymore!
You wrote a coed that saved a billion a year?
Holy shit. Does she dream of electric sheep, or is he or she just a pleasure model?
and you pyramid builders better be careful or you'll get sued by the Egyptians.
mfwright@batnet.com
Earlier than that, the patent was supposed to give the inventor a source of income from sharing his know-how with the world. If he ran a self-owned business, that knowledge would have been lost if he died or retired. If he documents that know-how as a patent, he csn block others from using that knowledge unless they pay him a fee. 30 years was supposed to be enough time for a career to last.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Do you want to know what the Patent Trolls really think of themselves?
BBC happens to interview Paul Ryan, top dog of Acacia Research Corp, a very well known patent troll
Podcast available at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/bizdaily/bizdaily_20120530-1006a.mp3
You tube carries another interview on the same guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwpGWT_LdDw
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If you got your way, major corps would just stonewall inventors till said inventers were forced to sell their patents. Then the corps would pocket big profits. Actually they already do this, but your way would probobly force it to happen more often.
Technicolor actually spends a lot on research. I worked there for years, up until very recently. Unfortunately they also make a lot of bad business decisions. They closed one of the best research labs in the company. You know who you are :)
The purpose of a patent is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". (Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution)
Since sitting on a patent cannot possibly promote progress of any sort, doing so ~should~ invalidate the patent.
I've taken apart ipads, iphones, pretty much every device.
I don't think I could tell what was patent infringing from that view and what was not.
I think they're just issuing press releases.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Are any of these patents software patents? If not, then this is not really a big concern. Software patents are an obscenity, regular patents can be a good thing. Perhaps the system needs a bit of reform, but only software patents should be abolished.
Can we at least limit the number of years they can stall a lawsuit? I'm sick to death of companies suddenly suing after a product has been out for years and sometimes a decade or more. They shouldn't be allowed to wait until the companies rack up a lot of profits before they hit them with a patent they never exploited. A judge should at least limit their recovery to the first three years. The point is if the company had known about the patent maybe they could have made changes to avoid racking up fees. It's a total scam.
Pure black and white with perfect contrast? No visible pixel matrix? LCD screens didn't look like that in the 80s. They looked liked this.
Now if you're talking about the 90s, the iPhone probably would've looked something like this.
It makes me wonder if this anachronistic retro hipster who drew this "80s iPhone" art was even alive in the 80s,
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
You know, if the engineers referenced the patents in designing these smartphones in order to not have to repeat the discovery and invention process then maybe I could see some payment to these patent companies. They had contributed to the speedy design and manufacture of the phone.
But we all know that this isn't the case. Had the engineers known about the patents ahead of time they would have (likely) either licensed them -- or designed around them to avoid the often outrageous additional costs that it would add to their project. They didn't set out to intentionally violate patents, but are now being burned by them all the same.
So the patent holding companies are being rewarded for having an idea first that everyone else using it also went through the same amount of effort to develop and use, and then have to pay for afterwards. I feel that needs to be changed.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In addition to patent licensing, which covers the registration and examination of the patent at the various international patent offices, I have an additional idea. I doubt I am the first one to think of this though.
How about we tax the value of the patent portfolios of every company holding patents as corporate assets. No longer should the balance sheet reflect the valuation of a patent as merely the filing fees. Instead, require that companies use standard metrics for evaluating the value of each patent, such as expected monthly royalties x 15. If a company nets substantially more in a 12 month period than the valuation, then haul their asses in for tax fraud, evasion, and high interest back taxes.
This would hopefully significantly reduce the number of patents produced as well as increase the willingness of companies to cross license their patents and call it even.
They're turning themselves into a patent troll. Nice move Technicolor!
-- Cheers!
there is no news here, just some info about techicolor and ... um, just about nothing else.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Clearly it's a typo.
It should have been "rode a coed".
Not quite sure how that helps save a billion a year, but I'm willing to try it out.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It's the concept of passively sitting on a idea and then trying to extort money from anyone who actually brings a product to market that stifles innovation and acts against the interests of society. If I had my way, the patent system would be use-it-or-lose-it. If you don't make a genuine effort to utilize a patent, you'd have to sell it (not license it) to someone who will or it would become void.
That's fine if your patent is a full end-user product. But say I invent a new kind of spark plug for your car, it won't come into production until you get a major contract. If nobody jumps at the idea, are you going to lose it instantly? Is it good enough if I have a prototype? Then the patent trolls would just collect prototypes like they collect their patents, with no genuine attempt to sell the prototype. Very quickly you can end up in a situation where the only ones who can put patents into production are those who already are incumbents in the industry already.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
and the zombie apocalypse begins. We need a good extinction event.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
While apple and google might fend them off, people like this make it IMPOSSIBLE for small time inventors, and small companies to get a foothold.
The only solution is reform intellectual property laws to make them harder to enforce, far more simple, and otherwise tweaked to prevent patent trolling.
a time, the marketing departments tore down the competitors products to improve and create something better. The results were concepts and mock-ups. Now the legal departments do the same work. The results are lawsuits and corporate orgies (without suits).
The opposite of a patent is a trade secret. If you keep it as a trade secret and then die, society as a whole may lose the invention.
If you publish your invention as a patent you get protection for some time but when it expires anyone can use it (this is the "promoting progress" part).