Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Can't Shield Customers From Patent Suits, Court Rules
netbuzz writes "A federal appeals court in California has upheld a lower court ruling that Cisco lacks the necessary standing to seek dismissal of patent infringement lawsuits against some of its biggest customers – wireless network providers and enterprises – being brought by TR Labs, a Canadian research consortium. The appeals court agreed with TR Labs' that its patent infringement claims are rightfully against the users of telecommunications equipment – be it made by Cisco, Juniper, Ciena or others – and not the manufacturers. 'In fact, all of the claims and all of the patents are directed at a communications network, not the particular switching nodes that are manufactured by Cisco and the other companies that are subject of our claims,' an attorney for TR Labs told the court. The court made no judgment relative to the patents themselves or the infringement claims."
What prevents Cisco sell product with additional service: "in case of court case related to patents used within this device, our legal team will help free of charge"?
And simply provide lawyers anyway?
If it's something that's done by hundreds of people who haven't seen the patent, isn't that prima facia evidence that it was obvious?
Why can't they do it? If the infringement is in something from cisco, why can't cisco be the one that deals with the lawsuit cause otherwise it just makes thingsmore expensive if every tech inside every component has to be licensed separately.
it shouldn't be valid.
The probability of getting exactly this value is just 1:100000. But if the random number generator was manipulated to predictably give that number, the probability is 1. Since I cannot know whether the random number generator was tampered with, I certainly have to give prior probability of 0.5 to both of the options "it has been tampered with" and "it has not been tampered with". Now Bayes' formula tells me that the probability that your random number generator has been tampered with is 0.5*1/(0.5*1 + 0.5*0.0001) = 0.9999, that is, almost certain. Therefore I conclude your random number generator has been tampered with by the NSA, and you should not rely on that number.
My random number generator is much better. It draws a random number from the interval [1,1] (inclusive), and I can prove that each choice has the maximal randomness possible with this choice.
To demonstrate it, let me draw a random number for you.
The random number is: 1.
The multiple levels of judges have agreed Cisco's gear does not infringe. It can be used to infringe, or used in ways that don't infringe.
According to the rulings, suing Cisco would be like suing Xerox for copyright infringement. Just because a copy machine CAN be used by an infringer doesn'tmake Xerox liable.
I do wonder if Cisco products are DESIGNED to be used in the way that plaintiff claims is infringement. Cisco seems to be suggesting that.
The headline is misleading about the actual ruling; here it is:
"TR Labs’ concession that it is willing to grant Cisco an unqualified covenant not to sue, TR Labs’ concession that it has no basis for asserting direct or indirect infringement claims against Cisco, including the parties’ agreement that Cisco’s products have substantial non-infringing uses, and Cisco’s failure to identify any obligation to indemnify or defend its customers distinguish this action from others in which this Court has found declaratory judgment jurisdiction and support the district court’s finding that it lacked the same. We therefore affirm the district court ruling."
http://www.finnegan.com/files/Publication/810cf458-9bde-4f9b-a98f-d5293cafbaad/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/11d7000f-5c7b-47ae-ad7a-db503720b379/12-1687%208-29-13.pdf
So because Cisco has no contractual obligation to indemnify their customers, and TR Labs is willing to give an unqualified covenant not to sue Cisco for direct or indirect infringement by Cisco's customers, and it's in the outside realm of possibility that all customers are using Cisco products in a non-failover configuration (the subject of the patents is failover) because they're stupid and fail to follow best common industry practice, Cisco is not a party to the suits against the customers.
Cisco could have taken this bullet if it had been willing to indemnify their customers via an amended terms and conditions on the Cisco OS software on the devices; it chose not to do so.
...have an idea just what this TR Labs outfit has a patent or patents on that are the ones supposedly being infringed?
It's got to be something a little less generic than "networking computers together with Cisco gear", doesn't it?
Because so far it's sounding like suing people who own automobiles because somehow you got a patent on the idea of using them to drive somewhere.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
In this particular instance, the Cisco customers being sued are behemoth telcos such as AT&T, CenturyLink, etc. We can collectively sigh that they have their own law resources to fight or negotiate or do whatever and continue on with their business.
Of course, we are worried for the time when a small business or individual is sued and forced into a settlement for this nonsense. I'm not sure what to do. The press does cover software patents and there appears to be some awareness that patent trolls are parasites, software patents stifle innovation, the USPTO is unqualified to award software patents, and that the patents, themselves, are intentionally vague and obvious. I've had enough and am ready to help. If you know of an organization whose goal is to end software patents in the US, let me know. Or any other ways an individual like myself can help for that matter.
Win or lose.... 'some of ciscos largest customers' will be passing that cost onto the rest of us.. The consumer.
We lose.
I do wonder if Cisco products are DESIGNED to be used in the way that plaintiff claims is infringement. Cisco seems to be suggesting that.
Remember, inside each and every Cisco product there is an NSA backdoor pre-installed.
Because when corporate taxes being increased is totted up, it's always put this way as well: "They'll just pass the cost on to us!".
But if that cost is passed on to you, you will need higher pay (not merely want, NEED). Therefore those costs will be passed on to your employer.
Who will pass those costs on to you again. Who will require more pay. And that costs your employer...
Can you see now how this "But they'll just pass the costs on to us!" is complete and utter bullshit evasion?
So if the patents are valid and the research done requires repayment, if this company is forbidden from suing US companies, that company will have to pass on the losses to you, the consumer.
You lose.
So if you're losing either way, what's the difference?
Do you really think Cisco will help? Take a look at how the company has behaved over the last decade. They screw over customers as much as they can get away with and repeat business be damned.
I have my doubts on the validity of the patents if the 'device' patented is a network configuration and not an actual pysical invention or a transformative device with an cleary defined input, process and output...
but then I'm not a patent troll, patent examiner or judge...
This decision is a 180 degree turn in logic from other court decisions on IP infringement. One example: file sharing sites being found guilty of providing platforms for illegal file sharing. But that's because RIAA and MPAA were in those cases specifically suing the creators of the platform, while at the same time pursuing other tactics against the users (file sharing individuals like Jammie Thomas).
TR Labs doesn't want to take on Cisco because Cisco is their cash cow. As long as Cisco keeps on selling products that infringe, TR Labs can sue customers that build networks offering services on those products. TR has no obvious business need to shut down Cisco. And TR probably considers their patents at risk if they sue Cisco directly, or they would have sued Cisco for very large amounts of money already. If Cisco thought their products infringed, they would certainly have spent some time negotiating and perhaps worked out a license. This route is lower risk for TR's alleged IP.
Congratulations. You have won the internets. Literally.
Cisco could have taken this bullet if it had been willing to indemnify their customers via an amended terms and conditions on the Cisco OS software on the devices; it chose not to do so.
That sounds like a great way to become exposed to massive unknown liability.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
It sounds like TR has patented something that is a basic property of the Internet (routing protocols) and its predecessor, the ARPAnet. So doesn't Al Gore hold the patent rights to all this stuff?
Seriously, one of the design principles of IP routing is that it 'routes around damage' (or censorship). So what novel innovation has TR contributed to this?
Have gnu, will travel.
Wouldn't the DECnet protocol (where each node maintained routing tables) be prior art? If a link went down, it would analyze the available links it had, hops to each node in the network, and compute a new 'next hop' to send packets to continue network connectivity. That was from the late 1970's.
No, that sounds to me like TR Labs knows they could sue Cisco, they're just deciding not to. So from there TR Labs is extrapolating that because they're not going to sue Cisco, Cisco has no right to defend their customers.
Of course Cisco doesn't want to, and shouldn't, accept all liability for their customers, that's just legally really dangerous. But this wrangling by TR Labs is just being done to make sure Cisco is unable to find any way to help their customers.
Suing businesses that just use equipment is horribly wrong and TR Labs knows it. Anyone involved in or running TR Labs is IMHO evil with hearts as black as coal.
At least small businesses being abused by assholes like TR Labs are starting to go to their state legislatures to get this kind of shit stopped by force of law. I would not protest at all states passing laws saying that all executives at any companies that try to pull shit like this should go directly to jail.
So who are they suing?
AT&T, CenturyLink Inc., Qwest Communications Company LLC, Qwest Corp., Windstream Corp., Sprint, Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc., TW Telecom Inc. and Level 3 Communications Inc.
Something tells me they have plenty of their own high priced attorneys for this. I'm guessing TR Labs figures they will find it cheaper to settle.
This is one of those who do I hate least I'll root for them scenarios...
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
So I looked at 4,956,835 too, because I figured a number that low it must surely have expired by now.
The patent was filed for 10/19/1988, issued 9/11/1990. That's 23 years ago. Patents don't last that long, how can they sue anyone over it? (Okay, the others might be problematic.)
That's why the Napster emails showing that they intentionally designed features for the purpose of infringement and promoted it for infringement were so important. Cross referencing the Billboard Top 40 shows that it's made specifically for infringing. You don't see Dropbox using banners promoting "find hit music" for that reason.
The law distinguishes between a generic tool that _could_ be used unlawfully versus a business model based on facilitating and promoting unlawful conduct. Whether or not you LIKE that particular unlawful conduct is a matter of opinion, but the logical distinction is quite clear and well-founded.
A hammer can be used for murder. Therefore, according to your reasoning manufacturers of hammers are liable for murder?
That's precisely analogous to your assertion that: routers can be used to build an infringing network, therefore router manufacturers are liable for infringement.
Perhaps you will say hammers are designed to build things, and that is somehow different. Okay then:
Hammers can be used to build bombs. Therefore, hammer makers are responsible for bombings.
Sorry, your reasoning just doesn't work.
The same can be said for any device. Gears and levers were invented before spaceships. Spaceships are a configuration of gears and levers. Therefore no-one can invent a new type of space vehicle?
If you do something NEW with gears and levers, that's a new invention. If you do something new with wheels and suction cups, that's a new invention. If you do something new with silicon and copper, that's a new invention.
,
Many patents have been issued for software and other things that do not do anything new. Those patents should not have issued because patents are for new inventions. Many overly broad patents have been issued and shouldn't have because they are overly broad. If you confuse those issues with what material the invention is made of, somebody is tricking you into not thinking things through.
Yes, nobody is claiming that all networks infringe. The plaintiff doesn't claim it covers all networks and in fact stipulates that it does not.
They are emphatically NOT "suing people for using Cisco devices", as evidenced by the fact that some defendants use other brands to do the same thing.
Whether or not their patent is any good I don't know, but it's not Cisco specific and they aren't claiming all Cisco users are infringing.
Their claim is more along the lines of "I'm suing you for building a bomb that blew up my car." They do not claim that using a tool is bad. They claim that doing X (with any tool) is bad.
Let's understand what their claim is before we decide if it's valid or bogus.
PS the appeals court ruled that plaintiff is not allowed to change their mind later and say either that the Cisco devices infringe or that using the devices infringes. Plaintiff has claimed that it's only infringing if they are connected in a certain infringing topology and the ruling is that they have to stick to that.
This is actually an extremely common thing to do. Most businesses will indemnify their partners and customers such that everybody is allowed (or is forced) to become party to a lawsuit -- it makes everyone play nicely, all the time.
The normal purpose for this though is more of a follow-up to the always included merchantability guarantee. For example, Apple indemnifies their customers against technology and patent infringement, which is why Samsung did not sue millions of iPhone owners directly - Apple was automatically enjoined to provide the defense due to customer-facing indemnification.
FYI -
Randal
Run any business. If we dont fix these laws and soon we may well find ourselves with 90 percent unemployment. Everyone paying ransom. This letter is to cease and desist mowing your lawn as you mower infringes our patent You have a court date to figure out actual damages for the last 20 years of mowing on the 5/21/14. It is advised you seek legal representation.
Every defendant is worth at least a billion dollars each. This is not a case of going after little guys who can't defend themselves.
Oh, ok. So they're suing for a network topology that can be created by using wireless routers.
NETWORK TOPOLOGIES SHOULD NOT BE FUCKING PATENTABLE!!!!
I mean what the hell. Are you telling me that the companies that set up these networks are not allowed to have their networks structured this way because this fucking companyÂhas a paper that says that they can't??!!!
TR Labs isn't going around helping companies configure and set up these networks for a fee as a service. They're suing people who just happen to come up with (on their own, hello trivially common methods!!) something that matches their sketch on their patent application.
TR Labs and everyone who works there is evil. They deserve nothing but contempt and scorn. This is a scam, what they are doing should be a crime. Its not currently a crime but I think it should be.
> Oh, ok. So they're suing for a network topology that can be created by using wireless routers.
They are suing a few of the largest backbone providers - AT&T, Comcast, Qwest, Level3, Comcast.
I'm pretty sure those networks aren't wifi based. In fact, the Cisco product mentioned in the CRS-1 routing platform. The CRS-1 is $80,000 each.
http://www.infinity-micro.com/cisco-crs-1-series-8slot-carrier-routing-system-single-1495.html
These are the "small guys" being sued:
AT&T $183 Billion
Comcast $115 Billion
Time Warner $58 Billion
Level3 $6 Billion
Still think they need Cisco ($130 B) to protect them?