Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple, Amazon, Microsoft & More Settle Lawsuits With Boston University

Posted by samzenpus on from the stop-using-my-stuff dept.

curtwoodward writes "Boston University hadn't been very aggressive with intellectual property lawsuits in the past. But that changed in 2012, when the school began suing the biggest names in consumer tech, alleging infringement of a patent on blue LEDs — a patent that, no coincidence, is set to expire at the end of 2014. As of today, about 25 big tech names have now settled the lawsuits, using 'defensive' patent firm RPX. A dozen or so more defendants are probably headed that way. And BU is no longer a quiet patent holder."

7 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. FB... you're next by gwstuff · · Score: 5, Funny

    For messing with us in the opening scene of The Social Network.

  2. Re:Patent on blue LEDs? by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    The patent isn't on the mere idea of blue LEDs, but on how precisely to make a particlar blue LED, which was not obvious. Mere ideas cannot be patented, contrary to what many Slashdot posters would like you to believe.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  3. I have zero problems with BU's patents by Yi+Ding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the way the patent system is supposed to work. The university creates a useful product based on a real technology advance, patents the idea, and then when it becomes ubiquitous the university is able to calculate the worth of the technology and gets large firms to license appropriately. This is completely different from software patents where it's mostly "I did it first, haha."

    1. Re:I have zero problems with BU's patents by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In this case, I have no problem with the patent being issued. The problem I have is with who gets sued.

      I'll bet Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft did NOT order Blue LEDs using BU's patent. They ordered blue LEDs and had no idea what tech was used to manufacture them. The manufacturer that actually used BU's tech to make the LEDs is the legitimate target of a suit.

  4. Re:Patent on blue LEDs? by Yi+Ding · · Score: 5, Informative

    More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#The_blue_and_white_LED

    The guy who made the first blue LED won a 1.3 million dollar prize. I'm assuming the reason BU is able to collect royalties is that their method is the one that's being used commercially. Look at the description in wikipedia: Does p-doping Indium Galium Nitride seem like a trivial process?

  5. Re:Patent on blue LEDs? by dacut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does p-doping Indium Gallium Nitride seem like a trivial process?

    It's trivial with the right equipment and materials. Figuring out that you need to p-dope IGN to make an LED, on the other hand...

    Reminds me of the story about the fancy car which, no matter what the shop mechanics tried, wouldn't start. So they call in an old mechanic buddy who had retired a few years ago to come take a look. He studies the engine carefully, making a note of the various fluid levels and temperatures as well as the sounds made by the engine. After going at it for a few minutes, he takes a bit of chalk, marks a spot on the engine, and then hits it with his hammer. With that, the engine roared to life.

    He then handed the customer a bill for $100. Aghast, the customer replies, "I'm not paying you $100 for hitting the engine with a hammer!"

    The old mechanic replies, "Hitting the engine was free. Knowing where to hit it is $100."

  6. Bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. I have a PhD in GaN LEDs, and work at an LED company
    2. I've worked with "the guy" who won that $1.3M prize for inventing the GaN LED
    3. I've worked on large, multi institutions government funded GaN-based projects that Moustakas was also involved on, I am very framiliar with the last 2.5 decades of his research in particular
    4. I am very familiar with both the devices and the IP of the field in genearl since I have a few of these kinds of patents

    This lawsuit makes no sense. First of all many if not most of the companies don't manufacture any GaN based LEDs. Second of all, that patent covers a technique that no one uses in commercial GaN LEDs. Literally no one. That patent very specifically covers GaN crystal growth by MBE (molecular beam epitaxy). Every single GaN LED company (Nichia, Cree, Soraa, etc.) uses MOCVD (Metal organic chemical vapor deposition) techniques. The claims are of course quite cryptic and difficult to determine their entire implication, but from what I can one of the mains things he is claiming to patent is any GaN structure grown on a foreign substrate with a low temperature poly-crystalline layer. Nearly all commercial LEDs are grown on sapphire of SiC with the use of some kind of low temperature poly-crystalline buffer layer. However there is lots of prior art on this (notice the dates!)

    http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/30/L1705/

    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/48/5/10.1063/1.96549

    He also tries to discuss the potential dopant atoms, none of the ones that are mentioned are currently used. Of course I'm not sure exactly which claim their lawsuits are hinging on, but all of the meaningful claims in there are covered by prior art (journal publications) and/or better, old, stronger patents.

    tl;dr this patent is bullshit, it covers things that have prior art, or aren't useful