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.
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.
...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...
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.
But there * IS * something wrong with 40-year-old patents.
From TFA . . .
> 'it feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why patents are interesting.'
It feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why protection rackets are interesting.
It feels like the rest of the world has just woken up to why extortion is interesting.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Well they can't do it in perpetuity. Patents expire after 20 years.
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.
Not if they change the patent slightly. Since they own the patent they can create a new device/process/whatever based on the original and basically renew the patent. Drug companies are famous for this. Look at CFC free albuterol inhalers.
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?
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 !
The thing is though, someone else could patent the improvement first and they would be dead in the water. Why doesn't this happen more often?
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.
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