Slashdot Mirror
Boston U. Patent Lawsuits Hit Apple, Amazon, Samsung, and Others
curtwoodward writes "First, we heard that Boston University — a private, four-year school overshadowed by neighbors like MIT and Harvard — was suing Apple for patent infringement. Well, sure, patent lawsuits in tech are an everyday thing, right? But it turns out this is not a one-off: BU has been quietly filing a barrage of patent lawsuits since last fall, all of them revolving around the same patents for LED and semiconductor technology. And the targets run the gamut, from Apple and Amazon to Samsung and several small companies that distribute or sell LEDs and other equipment. A couple of small guys have settled, but Amazon and Samsung are refusing. Still to come: Apple's response."
I think this nicely illustrates the situation.
Thank goodness we've got this method for promoting progress in the useful arts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
On the surface this sounds like patents which relate to semiconductor physics and process technologies.
This is _exactly_ the kind of thing the patent system was designed for! They're not goofy/obvious/stupid software patents - they are extremely complicated and non-trivial processes.
This isn't a "rounded corners" case and doesn't look like a patent troll.
OK guys, can we please admit the US patent system is broked and needs repair now?
This is getting out of control and I think it's because everyone has arrived at this same basic conclusion: FIX PATENTS NOW.
...are sure to have enough brain power to work their way around this shit. Just think about how much they could achieve if only they worked together!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."
"We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."
You dare impugn Isaac Asimov? CRUCIFY HIM!!
Free Martian Whores!
They filed it in 1995, it was published in 1997. Its going to expire in the next few years.
They're claiming they invented GaN LED's.
If they weren't being a troll about it, they would have been sueing 10+ years ago, not two years before it expires.
It would be better if we adequately taxed corporations to fund this research and then allowed it to be publicly released to all, such that any person who could turn the research into an application could have the opportunity without fear of patent trolls.
But that's just crazy talk afterall. I mean slitting a city/county/state's own fiscal wrists to allow a company to locate themselves there is necessary in this tough economic climate, isn't it? :-P
Maybe they can sue Lucas*(Now a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney) for trademark and IP infringement for their use of 'droid' which is an obvious contraction of android and thus subject to intellectual property claims to be made by the Asimov estate/his alma mater (or something similiarly ridiculous).
At least that would be doing a service for nerds everywhere :)
Why do you think they'll stop with Apple?
If they win this suit, they will use it as additional ammo for targeting the next big company, and then the next, and so on until there's nothing left worth gunning for that hasn't already paid through the nose. It's the same pattern as all the rest of them use.
"But we have a patent on patent trolling...you'll be hearing from our lawyers. Also stop selling douches on amazon...we have it trademarked"
"Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson
Boston University is much more than a four-year school. BU has a graduate school, a medical school, and a law school as well. Just because it isn't Harvard or MIT doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I would like to see something like that parties have one year from the time they should have reasonably become aware of a product that infringes on their patents to contact the party infringing to license/desist/whatever. If they fail to, then the patent expires.
So it is fine to patent something and not make something with it. After all, there are places that do research (like universities) that don't make products. You don't need to make something yourself. However if someone starts using your work, and you should reasonably be aware of it, like it is being sold in retail stores and such, then the clock starts ticking. You have to contact them. If you don't, well then I think it is fair to assume you don't care. As such, you lose it.
None of the waiting for shit to become really popular and then jumping from the shadows. You either enforce it, or it goes away.
Also for this particular case if this is about GaN LEDs (I haven't looked at their claims) that is rather trolly of them given that Nagoya University is where that came from, back in 1989, and some of the more recent stuff from the University of Illinois.
First, we heard that Boston University — a private research institute that badly runs a four-year school on the side...... FTFY
And the targets run the gamut
I see what you did there.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You guys talk like Boston University is in the business of developing technologies to license, and that they keep track of what's happening in the computer industry. I'm quite sure they weren't quietly biding their time, waiting for "their" technology to become entrenched; more likely, they had no clue. I suspect they stumbled upon this patent in their files, either serendipitously or in a search for new revenue streams. Which is basically what every business or organization in the country is doing now, since it's been well proven there's big money in previously ignored patents.
GRANTS.
Using monies STOLEN from the taxpayers for constitutionally illigitimate purposes.
The "economy" is SUPPOSED to be a level "playing field", it is a total and complete fiction when correctly viewed [everything is lewd] as nothing more than a crony-capitalist rigged game. And I do mean the entire world economy, not just the "American" mess.
Let me say Fuck You BU. They're the assholes of Back Bay. Whatever the quality of their Music&Arts Dept and several grad dept's, their undergrad housing sucks, they grab real estate left & right, and run possibly the most boring blahblah public radio station in the nation.
(wow - my first genuine flamebait in years. What set that off?)
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
The Blue GaN LED has been around since 1989, FAR PREDATING BU's patent assertion.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I doubt Apple or Amazon is specifying how the LEDs are made. This is a weirdness in patent law, in that you can sue the user of patent infringing part, not the manufacturer.
This is not an entirely weird idea. Specifically, if your design incorporates a CDMA part, you will have to pay a patent royalty on the use of CDMA to Qualcomm of $35. The catch is that the royalty is only due on the part if you import it into the U.S. where there is a patent in effect on CDMA, and not due in other markets where there is not a CDMA patent in effect.
So BU may have some standing here, if the off the shelf parts using their technology did not have a license from BU to use the patented technology in the manufacture of those parts; if that's the case, then a royalty must be negotiated for importation of the device manufactured in an area with no patent on the technology into a market where such a patent applies.
This is something of a dirty trick, since often the patent holders will engage in selective enforcement against people with deep pockets. I.e. you can buy the same part yourself from Digikey or other vendors, or from Chinese and Japanese vendors, and have it drop-shipped to you in the U.S., or even have devices built abroad using the part and import it into the U.S., and BU will likely not sue you until you have deep pockets.
One of the failings of patent law is that, unlike trademarks, which have to be rigorously defended for them to remain in force, patents do not require rigorous defense. Likewise, while attempting to treat IP (Intellectual Property) as real property for enforcement purposes, the courts do not recognize the doctrine of adverse use/adverse possession, in which, after a period, if not stopped from use, the user establishes an interest and therefore the owner can not contest it. It's rather like being able to "have your cake and eat it too".
Hopefully there will be some patent reform soon; meanwhile, yes, BU is playing a dirty trick by not going after "first offender first", but they are likely within their rights... ...assuming of course the first principle that the off the shelf parts used in the devices were not manufactured under license of the patent from BU. If that assumption is invalid, then BU is just trolling for a settlement and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.