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."

2 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Random Value: 83734

    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.

  2. Re:If a patent covers not the hardware but its use by mysidia · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the patent was for using some piece of hardware in a new and inventive way that the original manufacturer hadn't thought of, then maybe it would be valid. But using Cisco networking gear to set up a network in exactly the way described in the manual or training materials doesn't come into that category.

    Brilliant... new patent

    Theory and Method for setting up a router

    Claim 1. A method of configuring a router in which a serial port, default IP address, DHCP provided IP address, multicast DNS, dynamically registered DNS, or IPv6 stateless autoconfigured address is used to facilitate gaining initial access to the router.
    Claim 2. A method in which the response to a DHCP or BOOTP request is used to discover a file server, such as a FTP or TFTP server, containing initial configuration data or instructions.
    Claim 3. A method of configuring a router, in which a broadcast-based discovery protocol is used to discover a IP or MAC address to access an unconfigured router.
    Claim 4. A method of configuring an IP-based router in which a non-IP protocol such as Ethernet is used with special purpose software to facilitate configuration of a device.
    Claim 5. A method of configuring a router, in which special software is provided to install on a server, to establish communication with unconfigured devices.
    Claim 6. A method where a wireless, USB, Serial port, or other dedicated interface is used to configure a router.
    Claim 7. A method of configuring a router, in which media containing software or a download link for software is used to install software on a PC, for performing initial configuration of a router.
    Claim 8. The method of configuring a router in which a book, manual, poster, card, piece of paper, or other written material accompanying the router is read, disseminated, and then steps from the document are followed.
    Claim 9. The above, where steps are taken from digital media distributed with the router instead.
    Claim 10. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose URL was provided with the router instead.
    Claim 11. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose URL is the manufacturer of the device.
    Claim 12. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose location can be discovered using a search engine such as Bing, Yahoo, or Google search for the make, model number, or type of router.
    Claim 13. The above, where some steps are skipped in the configuration process.
    Claim 14. The above, where some pertinent details are collected from the documentation or website; such as default IP address, default username, default password, administration URL.
    Claim 15. The above, where software is downloaded to automatically configure the device, instead of documentation.
    Claim 16. The above, where a phone call is placed to a contact or support line provided the manufacturer.
    Claim 17. The above, where a phone call is placed to a contact or support line provided by a reseller, retailer, consultant, or other third party contact instead.
    Claim 18. The above claims, where an e-mail, IRC Chat, Instant messenger, Skype, VoIP service, Pastebin, or "Blog" is used instead of a telephone.
    Claim 19. The above claims, where a written, visual or audio communication on a private or public social networking website such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, or Google plus is used instead.
    Claim 20. The above claims, where any letters containing configuration instructions or details are sent or received using postal mail.