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.

6 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. 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 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

    2. 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.

  3. 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 !
  4. 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."