Slashdot Mirror
Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements
curtwoodward (2147628) writes "In January, Boston University settled lawsuits against two dozen big technology companies for allegedly using its patented blue LED technology without permission. But apparently, the school's lawyers were a little too forthcoming for everyone's tastes — they recently asked a federal judge to delete a court filing that spelled out all of the companies who settled. Luckily, we still had the unredacted version, which shows that Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Motorola and many more are on the list, even if they don't want you to know it."
Universities should serve the public good. Anything created there should go into the public commons and be available to anybody and everybody to use. When you make the choice to be, or work at, a university you trade profit for service. If you can't accept that, then work somewhere else, or be some other type of an institution than a university.
Maybe Boston U have seen this coming, and in reality want to publicise the list. I for one had never heard of them owning a patent on blue LEDs before this, and now I see how even the big guys pay not to take them on.
Korma: Good
You don't know what a signature is.
Time to disconnect from the modern world and go live in a wooden cabin in the middle of the forest.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Ok fine.
If universities must submit all research into the public commons, then corporations should stop getting subsidies/deductions/kickbacks. After all, thats public money. Corporations shouldn't be able to get public money AND private money.
No comments here as to why BU might want the parties kept private.
Let me hazard to guess that the settlements/licenses included confidentiality clauses, and the publication of the names may somehow work against BU.
OTOH, if BU brought suit against all these companies, wouldn't any post-settlement dismissal of those suits necessarily be a matter of public record?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Apple, Microsoft, Dell, BlackBerry, Nokia, etc. don't make LED's, they buy them . Hence they're customers. Does this mean that the absurd idea of suing customers in addition to manufacturers has been accepted? Patent trolling is bad, but this is just plain nuts.
Patents give the owner an exclusive right to make, sell, import, or use an invention. While customers aren't making, selling, or (sometimes) importing the product, they are using it.
Now, that said, various exhaustion and indemnification rights may exist. In fact, frequently what happens is the patent owner sues a customer, the customer brings in the manufacturer as a third party defendant under rule 14, and then the customer walks away and the manufacturer and patent owner hash things out. Same thing occurs when there's a car accident - I sue you, you bring in your insurance company, and then I and your insurance company figure it out. I can't sue them directly, because I have no privity of contract with them or grounds for suit against them.
This isn't anything to do with trolling - this is just a standard thing for when A has a cause of action against B, and B has a defense by way of C.
Okay, the settlement was done a couple months ago. The only thing new here is that the lawyers want to retroactively redact some company names from the original paperwork. So... Where's the story? It's only a mildly amusing anecdote and I expect this sort of thing happens fairly frequently. I get the distinct impression that the submitter wanted me to see something more here but for the life of me I can't figure out what.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Say what? Exactly who are Apple, etc, customers of? Certainly not BU. And what do Apple, et al do with those LEDs? They import them into the US, then they sell them. And here is what the US Patent law says: Whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term the patent therefor, infringes the patent. You know how long that statement has been in patent law? Since Thomas Jefferson wrote it.
This alone is qualification for him to be a doctor.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Really? (and I say that as a genuine question, not some snarky reply)
I always thought you could "make your own" from patent filings, you just couldn't sell/trade/traffic/commercialize it. So if I wanted to construct a swing in my backyard and use it in a sideways motion (with or without the Tarzan yell), such as currently under patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... , I could do so without fear of repercussion, but I could not sell such a swing setup to others without violating the rights of the patent owner. Your definition of "use" would prevent such a project in my back yard.
I don't buy the auto analogy, mainly because the insurance companies have nothing to do with the suit, except though my contract with them for payment of an award. The only reason their lawyers get involved is because it's their money. I have a buffalo wireless router I purchased many years ago, and if the courts interpret "use" as you say, then I am in direct violation of several patents (since Buffalo, afaik, never paid for the patents they used)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Patent laws are truly ridiculous. We should banish them all because there is zero evidence that patents are beneficial for society. We can re-implement them if we have evidence they're useful, but we have none. The absurdity you note is due to the patent law which paints both use and inducement of infringement as forbidden by patent law. Therefore, not only are you in violation of patent law if you stumble upon an idea or wavelength that someone else already registered first and try to market it, but you're also not allowed to use the discovery yourself in your private business or even in the privacy of your own home for your own personal use.
I have written operating systems completely from scratch using only a hex editor boot sector, coding with machine op codes editing executing memory, saving and loading via writing the code to load and store data between sectors and RAM. Using this simplest of tool possible (since boot from serial is missing on today's mainboards) I bootstrapped an editor, assembler, disassembler (then disassembled the assembler to get its source), and proceeded to create file systems and compilers and basic audio, graphics, and device drivers -- just for fun! I am fairly certain that it's illegal for me to use the OS I wrote from completely from scratch for my electronics & hobby projects or even to just write my memoirs in isolation because it's practically impossible NOT to accidentally "invent" a solution someone else has already thought of first and patented. Furthermore, how many new patents would be invalidated would that I could compare them against the prior art I refuse to open source for fear of lawsuit? IMO, such accidental patent infringement should be immediate grounds for invalidation of the patent on grounds of obviousness; However, there is no test for obviousness despite non-obviousness being a requirement for awarding of a patent.
I must refuse to look in the PTO database to discover whether I'm correct (because that yields 3x damages if you have definite foreknowledge of infringement), and this is the same reasoning that engineers DO NOT USE the patent databases! The patents are useless because it's faster and safer to re-invent your wheel than LICENSE someone else's vaguely described solutions BEFORE you can discover if it will work -- don't want to accidentally infringe by making an implementation and testing it -- over and over and over until you find one that works.
So, patents are essentially USELESS. They are useful to stifle competition not foster innovation. Mathematics, fashion and automotive designs wouldn't advance if patents were required for innovation, as these are prohibited from having patent protections and yet there the innovation is. We have only evidence for the null hypothesis, i.e., in opposition to the assumption that patents are beneficial for society and advancement of the useful arts or sciences. It's irresponsible to continue operating the world wide marketplace of ideas on an untested and unproven hypothesis. What if patents are holding us back needlessly? Wouldn't we want to find out sooner rather than later?
Time to do the experiment and abolish patents. I say we go one market at a time, starting with software patents since they exist until the mid 80's anyway, and yet we made it to the personal computer without them.
Headline just sounds like some hick saying "Boston U". Everybody in the area knows it's always called BU.
I always thought you could "make your own" from patent filings, you just couldn't sell/trade/traffic/commercialize it.
Nope. Per Wikipedia, "...a patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention...".
Now usually it's not worth the time/effort to enforce patents against end-users since they generally don't have much money. But witness the patent trolls going after small businesses for "scanning to email" or the use of wi-fi (really, look up Innovatio IP Ventures).
If I come up with a way of doing something, I don't have a problem with you needing to either re-invent it from scratch or else pay me to use my idea.
I do think that if you can show that you really did invent something from scratch *without ever seeing my invention or hearing about it* then you shouldn't have to pay me.
Similarly, a patent should be on a specific implementation, not a general concept. This latter part seems to be a huge problem with many software patents...they try to patent a concept rather than a specific implementation of the concept.
As another poster said, you don't understand what a signature is. It doesn't have to be legible, it just needs to be a unique handwritten mark. It can be a quickly-drawn picture of an elephant if you want, as long as it looks much like all your other such pictures, and is hard for someone else to duplicate.
They can't do what he said. The manufacturers of the LEDs have not infringed the patents, because they did not make, use, sell, or offer to sell the LEDs in the US, nor did they import them. Apple, et al, did that. What the customers can do however, if they are so inclined, is sue their suppliers (after they settle with BU.) But there is no way they can just pass the blame like he suggested.
Patent law says: Whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term the patent therefor, infringes the patent. You know how long that statement has been in patent law? Since Thomas Jefferson wrote it.
"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
Do you honestly think that we would have near the things we have today if not for patents? Do you really think some hobbyists were going to invent the transistor, the microchip, the complicated and expensive processes and tooling for manufacturing ever smaller and more powerful chips, battery technology, touch screens, all the lightweight but strong materials we have, LEDs, whatever? If so, you are seriously deluding yourself.
Patents have existed for only a few hundred years. People have existed for thousands of times longer. Why were the ancient Babylonians not walking around with cell phones? Why did Da Vinci's inventions only exist as drawings, and not practical things? How were we able to go from communicating only by sending letters to being able to to see and talk to someone anywhere on Earth with a small handheld device that weighs a few ounces? Could any of those things have to do with having a financial incentive to work on them? Just maybe?
Nobody says that patents are REQUIRED for innovation to occur. The purpose of patents is to PROMOTE innovation. Yes, there will always be people who invent with no financial incentive (particularly for things that don't require any expense). However, there are millions of other people who are capable of inventing, but need to make a living. The purpose of patents is to urge THEM to invent. Whether that prodding comes in the form of making and selling your own products, or whether it comes in the form of a paycheck from someone else who is hoping to cash in on your work does not matter. The end result is things get invented.
And your example sucks. You did not invent anything, you just recreated something by using the knowledge gained from the people who did invent those things. Come back to us when you have actually invented a useful or desirable thing, and someone else is making and selling it cheaper than you because they didn't have to go to the expense of inventing it.
Nichia had blue Gallium-Nitride LED tech in 1994, and is in fact credited with its invention.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, ...
So England needs to serve us with a cease and desist order for copying their patent idea.
Please, England.
Have gnu, will travel.
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it." - Thomas Jefferson, very same letter.
Please give me a call the next time your family departs on vacation...
Mine is GLORIOUS! Unfortunately, my signature (unlike Michael's) contains my first and last name so I won't post it here.
So signing for computer parts at my competitor's store by drawing a cat paw print on their little writing strip thingy is alright?
Why not just write them normally? That's what I do, and I'm in my 40s. Cursive is a useless waste of time, much like schooling in general.
Legally, yes.
I disagree. Think of holding patents as another way of funding an already cash-strapped educational system. A lot of schools are in need of better facilities for teaching students, many bright students are in need of scholarships, and professors are substantially under-paid compared to their industry counterparts. To do research (and get paid during the summer), you have to go out and apply for grant money, and not all of it can come from the NSF or other government agency. Organizations like SRC pool industry funding for research as well. So, if a professor or grad student invents something truly novel and actually worth patenting, why not leverage that as a means to bring more money into the school? This isn’t double-dipping anymore than it is double-dipping to use one grant-funded innovation as supporting work to motivate more grant-funded work. It’s more research funding to make the school run better and the royalties aren’t functionally a whole lot different from any other industry grant. It means that students, instructors, and researchers at that school will have better resources.
What Boston U is doing exactly, I’m not sure. There was a big hubbub at Wisconsin recently too, but Guri Sohi is a MAJOR pioneer in computer architecture, so I’m inclined to lean towards his side there. When someone sues over patents, my first reaction is to assume they’re trolling. But universities aren’t shell corporations or patent trolls that produce no real innovations. Things most universities patent have already been published in peer-reviewed venues, unlike so much other crap that is snuck into the PTO, making them much more likely to be real innovations, often with functional prototypes and open source implementations. if anything, I would say that universities should get the benefit of the doubt WAY more than any other class of patent applicants.
"He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me" - also Thomas Jefferson
Your acreage of land, unlike an idea, cannot exist simultaneously in the minds of many. Please do not conflate the qualities of the tangible and the intangible.
I'm sorry, we're not dicussing the properties of the tangible versus the intangible. We're discussing the vicissitudes of natural versus social law. The quote and comment also have nothing to do with simultaneity.
"Never mind that, look over here" is not a rebuttal. Thanks for playing.
... please explain to me how discussing the vicissitudes of natural versus social law does not involve the historical (and ongoing) hypocrisy of men conflating the tangible with the intangible for their own selfish purposes, or how your comment involving "the next time" has nothing to do with a problem of simultaneity.
When I use a credit card, I always sign completely illegibly. Nobody ever cares.
This is the Constitution.This is the Constitution under the Bush administration. Any questions?