Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements

Posted by timothy on from the those-lights-can-be-infuriating-at-night dept.

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."

14 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Universities should have no patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Universities should have no patents by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, double dipping on "private" profits and public funds seems a little...what do they always call the private sector?...Oh yeah, greedy.

    2. Re:Universities should have no patents by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      students and alumni?

      or, has the model of 'students pay to atten' no longer enough to keep the uni's afloat?

      given how much textbooks cost these days, you'd think they'd all be rolling in money and not need to sue companies.

      then again, any time a company of large size is sued, god saves the life of a puppy. so there's that going for it; which is nice.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Universities should have no patents by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      Blame the Bayh–Dole Act. When it was passed, it seemed to make sense. It had wide support - Bayh and Dole were on very opposite sides of the aisle. In practice it's meant that universities are more worried about protecting their "intellectual property" than about publishing and disseminating research results. For that reason a lot of academic researchers are unhappy about it too. It's time to take what turned out to be a bad ides and ditch it. Universities shouldn't be run the way for-profit companies are.

    4. Re:Universities should have no patents by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As NPR pointed out a few months ago, "Do universities really need a Director of Diversity at $175,000 per year?"

    5. Re:Universities should have no patents by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please, what a load of crap. Yes, large companies will get the tech for free (though they'll only get the very basics, they'll still have to develop manufacturing techniques, which the university research isn't going to help them with that much). But it's not just one company, it's ALL companies that have a desire to use this tech. And then the rest of society benefits from having the knowledge, and the technology cheaply available since all competitors now have it.

      It's no different than open-source software. Having it out there enriches everyone, even when big companies use it for their own purposes, or build products based on it. It advances the state of the art faster, increases quality, and reduces costs (resulting in reduced prices to end-users). You really think we'd be better off if all our consumer routers and various other devices had to pay $$$ for VxWorks licenses rather than having Linux and BSD available for free?

      The University gets recognition for their invention.

      and the possibility to build a company assembling blue LEDs without having to worry about patents. Well, I guess that's something.

      That's a very big something; it's the whole idea. Patented tech with high license fees doesn't benefit us as much as freely-available tech.

    6. Re:Universities should have no patents by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of my coworkers is teaching a class at the local university. They are paying him $6000 for the semester. He has 30 students, each student pays the uni $2600 to take the class so the uni got $78,000 in tuition for this one class and had to pay the professor $6000. Where do you think the money goes?

      It's an online class. There is no lab equipment, no building fee...

    7. Re:Universities should have no patents by infinitelink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It goes to administration, which like HR professionals always expands its own class, hence pay and lobbying power, hence tentacles through a system, and then repeat. Give all a raise--and throw-in tenured profs (especially those with admin privilges themselves) for good measure, and repeat again.

      To adapt Reagan's motto: "defund the [administrative class]."

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
  2. Re:another interesting fact by Arsist · · Score: 4, Funny

    You don't know what a signature is.

  3. Re:Suing customers instead of manufacturers? by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Suing customers instead of manufacturers? by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Even use after a first sale transaction? by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:Even use after a first sale transaction? by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Yes, you are incorrect there. The statute is 35 USC 271 and states:

      Except as otherwise provided in this title, 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 of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

      Note that there's no commercial requirement - this is unlike trademark law, where infringement has to include commercial use, because federal trademark law comes out of the commerce clause, while patents are under Article 1, section 8, clause 8. Merely using a patented invention is infringement, even if it's for completely non-commercial gain. In fact, this why there was the whole big controversy over the BRCA1 gene in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: one of the concerns was that if Myriad could patent an isolated gene, then scientists couldn't use that isolated gene even in their non-profit research on cancer cures.

      Two things, though: first, that swinging on a swing patent has been invalidated. ;)
      Second, for the most part, if you're making something for personal use in your home, the patent owner may never find out about it, so while you may be infringing, you're unlikely to get sued. Even if you do, the reasonable royalty for private, personal home use may be negligible. Let's pretend that the swinging patent was still valid and you did it... What's a reasonable royalty? A nickel? Maybe an entire quarter? It's going to cost someone at least $50k to file suit for infringement, and even if by some incredible odds you were found to willfully infringe and be held liable for their attorney fees, they'd still lose money, just due to inflation and lost investment opportunity. Plus, a judge would probably refuse the attorney's fees, because someone who sues over twenty-five cents is someone who is wasting the court's time, so why should they end up anywhere close to whole?

      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.

      But they have no right to interfere in the suit, even if it's their money, unless they can be made a party. That's what FRCP rule 14 is all about. As a result, they do have something to do with the suit, albeit indirectly to the main controversy. Civil procedure is weird that way.

      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)

      Yes, quite possibly. It would depend on the claims at issue, of course.
      Specifically, some claims are written from an active client perspective - "receiving, by a router, a wireless communication; processing, by the router, the communication to do something really awesome; etc." Buffalo may make routers, but do they infringe such a claim?

  6. Re:Suing customers instead of manufacturers? by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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