Slashdot Mirror


De-escalating the Android Patent War

In 2011, a consortium formed from Microsoft, Apple, Sony, BlackBerry, and others spent $4.5 billion acquiring Nortel's patent portfolio, which contained a great deal of ammunition that could be used against Android. That threat has now been reduced. Today, 4,000 of the patents were purchased by a corporation called RPX, which has licensing agreements from Google, Cisco, and dozens more companies. [RPX is] a company that collects a bunch of patents with the goal of using those patents for member companies for defensive purposes. Even though RPX has generally been "good," the business model basically lives because of patent trolling. Its very existence is because of all the patent trolling and abuse out there. In this case, though, it's making sure that basically anyone can license these patents under FRAND (fair and reasonable, non-discriminatory) rates. The price being paid is approximately $900 million. While that article points out that this is considerably less than the $4.5 billion Microsoft and Apple paid originally, again, this is only 4,000 of the 6,000 patents, and you have to assume the 2,000 the other companies kept were the really valuable patents. In short, this is basically Google and Cisco (with some help from a few others) licensing these patents to stop the majority of the lawsuits -- while also making sure that others can pay in as well should they feel threatened. Of course, Microsoft, Apple and the others still have control over the really good patents they kept for themselves, rather than give to Rockstar. And the whole thing does nothing for innovation other than shift around some money.

12 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. It's not GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What it does is create a barrier to entry to a market and lock in the existing players. Instead of one patent covering an invention expiring after 20 years, an amorphous blob of non-patents is created to which the existing players join a pool.

    This is really no better than having one patent troll like Microsoft trying to block competitors with BS patents so weak it won't reveal them without an NDA. It's trying to hide weak patents in a fog of paperwork.

    The companies that bought into the patents are: 1) Confirming the validity of these junk patents ensuring troll MS continues to milk money for something it didn't invent, and 2) Ensures they will have the same trick to use against any new entrant.

  2. Value? by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Without knowing anything about these patents it is impossible to put that value into perspective; Did MS just taking a tremendous loss or did they score big time? They paid 4.5 billion, now a few years latter how does that price look taking this sale into consideration? Did Microsoft end up losing their shirt, taking only like 20% of the cost for 66% of the patents? Or is and was 80+% of the value of the hoard in the remaining 33%?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  3. I'm starting to think it's this simple... by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Patents should be granted to an individual or their assigned company - and then NOT allowed to be transferred. If it's really intellectual property, require that it be used by the intellectual who came up with it, not randomly sold to some giant team of lawyers who try to "monetize" it 10 years after the fact.

    That would allow any person - or company that person worked for at the time - to take full advantage of the patent for its original purpose (since almost all patent trolls are not the original inventors) while preventing the soul-sucking leeches on innovation who just want to buy up a bunch of "intellectual property" and speculatively sue anyone who might be doing something remotely similar.

    1. Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... by Dracos · · Score: 2

      That's a really good idea, but... cue inane "coprorations are people" counter-argument.

    2. Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... by unrtst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a really good idea, but... cue inane "coprorations are people" counter-argument.

      It's a crap idea. If patents could not be transferred, then if person X worked for company Y, and then went to company Z, they'd be taking the patents with them with no means to leave them with the company that was using them.
      Furthermore, it doesn't solve anything... company X can buy company Y and then give themselves free licensing rights and have their legal team take over suing others just as companies do now. If you're thinking, "you wouldn't be allowed to only buy the patents", that's trivial to work around... sell off all the other parts of the business, leaving only the patents, then sell everything that's left (just the patents).
      Regardless, one could still assign full rights to manage said patent portfolio to some 3rd party company. That would be nearly impossible to avoid - just consider the 3rd party as a bunch of lawyers and have them do all the same stuff those 3rd parties are doing today, simply leaving the actual patent assignment where it was.

      How about we modify that solution a little... (NOTE: this is a proposal, not a statement of the current situation)

      #1. corporations are not people (not sure which way you meant that counter-argument to read).
      #2. corporations can not hold patents
      #3. people can transfer patents to other people, or sell licensing agreements with terms of their choosing

      FWIW, I do not claim that would solve the problem either. I think that's better than the current situation, but it's still fairly easy to manipulate and end up in a functionally identical situation. Someone patents something while working for a company; company draws up paperwork to have a zero cost licensing agreement with that employee (or maybe gives them a bonus or something... up to them); company and employee could agree to sign over the rights to some other person at the company; company would essentially own the patent. There'd be more ways to get a patent out of the loop, but with the right paperwork in place it wouldn't matter.

      There are a bunch of real problems with the current system, but the ownership thing is really more of a symptom of those issues than an actual problem.

      * software patents. This is highly debated. IMO, these should go away completely. I'm speaking as a programmer, and I believe copyright is sufficient.
      * patent trolls. The solution that this article is referring to is actually just another form of patent troll. It's an entity that owns a bunch of patents, does nothing with them itself, and licenses them out. It's doing this for "good" here, but it's still charging a significant amount (kickstarter isn't going to get you access to these).
      * crappy patents. Far too many obvious ideas are allowed to be patented. This isn't really anything new. You should see how many patents existed for various paper clips. I'm not convinced that adding ridges to an existing paperclip design justified a new patent by a new owner, for example. There's an awful lot of grey area, and I don't have a very good solution for this - it's all just opinion.
      * bogus patents. Far too many are granted that have pre-existing implementations. On one hand, I think that, if the patent system can't keep up with the filings and do thorough checks, then they should charge more for filing so they can afford to do the checks. On the other hand, patents should be affordable for the average joe, else one of the primary purposes is complete dead. Perhaps it should be significantly easier and cheaper to challenge a patent without involving the owner at all (ie. send in a form, proof/examples of existing work, a check, and have it reviewed).
      * vague infringement claims. If some entity claims publicly that something/someone is infringing on a bunch of its thousands of patents, it should have to provide evidences and references of some degree. If they don't, it should be handled somewhat like slander. These threats disrupt the market and hurt others without

    3. Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patents should be granted to an individual or their assigned company - and then NOT allowed to be transferred.

      Nice try. So what justification are you giving for this? For example, if I made an invention that could greatly improve any smartphone, you are saying that it is essentially useless unless I start building smartphones and compete with Google and Apple? I'm not allowed to sell this invention to either of them? Please explain why that would be good.

      You are basically making sure that only big companies will ever be able to get patents and make use of them.

    4. Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      That completely ruins the one case which is commonly cited as the reason for patents... to protect the individual inventor. An inventor typically sells their patent to an entity that can actually do something with it (rather than having to build a business around it all on their own, which is probably not their skill). If a patent holder cannot licence or transfer their property then there won't be any point in getting one (or doing the work in the first place) and only companies will get patents.

  4. The barrier has been there all along ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I am a patent holder

    I entered the field back in the 1970's and guess what? Patents were already there !

    While it is true that patent trolling were not considered to be trendy back then, but the existence of patents in itself had already stiffen innovation somewhat

    While we geeks and nerds kept on trying out new ideas, the institutions (universities and research labs) we worked for were sweating bricks and had to check with their attorneys to make sure that we were doing did not trespass on somebody else' patents

    The idea of patents were good, when it was invented, however, that idea does not suit the present days environment anymore. Due to the abuse and trolling, patents have become a big hindrance to the society to move forward

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:The barrier has been there all along ! by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Patents back in the 1970s were only slightly broken compared to today. I've met several inventors or their relatives who invented things like milk cartons and every-day items we now take for granted. Up through the 1970s, "inventor" was a potential career path.

      That all changed rapidly starting in 1982, when Congress voted to give all patent appeal cases to a single appeals court in Washington DC. This court basically created the patent troll industry. Before 1982, trolls would have been thrown out of court. Since then, this court has become a puppet to the patent troll industry through something called regulatory capture.

      I wont go into the evils of software patents here. It is a regular flame topic on slashdot. However, we can blame this appeals court for them. Most recently, I was shocked when they changed long standing precident and declared that APIs are copyrightable, which if upheld, has potential to end software development as we know it.

      I have several software patents. We are required to get them for defensive purposes. This is essentially a lawyer's tax on the software industry, with zero benefit to non-lawyers, so far as I can tell.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  5. Patents... ugh by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Software patents are utter bullshit from word one. They should just go away and stay away.

    Hardware patents are something else, but it's pretty clear they are being *very* poorly managed. I don't even like saying it, but I'm afraid I agree with you: they do more harm than good now.

    We need an entirely new model of encouraging invention. Trade secret is useful in providing a reasonable profit window and establishment of precedence in the marketplace (the only way to go with software, as far as I'm concerned) as the window you get correlates well with the complexity of what you've done, but has its limits when we're talking hardware.

    Perhaps a way for society to pay for an invention, and once that's been done, it goes right into the "available to everyone" pool. Panels of experts setting perceived value and an immediate payment being made, followed by a revisit ten years later to determine how it all went, with extra reward possible if the invention's impact was underestimated?

    Look at me, suggesting government committees. Oy. I should go bang my head on a table.

    But damn, we *really* need to clean out the drains. Patents are the disgusting glop that are making the system run slower and slower, while getting legal sewage all over everyone involved. The only consistent winners here are the plumbers (lawyers.)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Patents... ugh by gnupun · · Score: 2

      But everyone gets a chance at it, and the inventor is already compensated.

      And why should they get a chance? What exactly have they done to deserve this chance? Absolutely nothing, they are just a bunch of evil freeloaders! Well, the inventor has probably been compensated enough according to you, but not according to the inventor.

      I want the inventor(s) paid well, and I want it to be related to the actual value of the invention.

      To your perceived actual value of the invention? Why should anyone care? The price is set by whatever the inventor can get from the market, not that set by a committee of socialist morons.

      What I want to eliminate is the monopoly, because that's an albatross around everyone else's neck, a huge, hemorrhoidal, bleeding, infected open sore on the ass of progress.

      Maybe you should learn the ABCs of something before writing on the subject. Every company makes profits due to barriers to entry to competitors. Some examples of barriers are, access to huge capital, favorable real estate, good product design, smart employees, etc. And patents are another type of barrier to entry for competitors and they are completely legal. The intention of patents is that the person who invented the product or sold the invention to makes the profits and not someone who had nothing to do with it.

      Are you willing to share 10% of your salary with homeless people? If no, then why should any inventor share his invention with any other people?

  6. RPX founders and Intellectual Ventures .. by lippydude · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nov 2008: "RPX is funded by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Charles Rivers Ventures. Its two chief executives, John Amster and Geoffrey Barker, previously served as vice presidents of Intellectual Ventures, another company in the business of purchasing patents."