Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Troll Wins $15.7M From Samsung By Claiming To Own Bluetooth

Posted by Soulskill on from the also-invented-the-moon dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A jury has upheld patent claims against Samsung and awarded the patent-holder $15.7 million. "The patents relate to compatibility between different types of modems, and connect to a string of applications going back to 1997. The first version of Bluetooth was invented by Swedish cell phone company Ericsson in 1994." Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that the patents cover all devices that use Bluetooth 2.0 or later, so further cases could extend far beyond Samsung. Of course, the company that won the lawsuit wasn't the one who made the invention, or the one who patented it. The company is Rembrandt IP, "one of the oldest and most successful" patent trolls.

126 comments

  1. Obvious prior art by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wouldn't Bluetooth 1.0 be the most obvious prior art ever?

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Obvious prior art by ptr2004 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That would be like saying Wright Glider is prior art for Airbus 380

    2. Re:Obvious prior art by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? You think that just because a standard increases in a version that the original should become prior art to all new technology introduced even if it had nothing to do with that technology?

      That's like saying the horse is prior art to the car.

    3. Re:Obvious prior art by GrpA · · Score: 5, Informative

      It would be, if the wording of the patent was something like "A craft, that travels through the air, by means of lift generated through the passage of relative airflow across a curved wing section known as the aerofoil, and of sustained airflow by means of propulsion caused by the action/reaction of a propulsion unit, which propels the craft forward against drag caused by the craft's passage through the air."

      The same wording would also cover missiles, but not helicopters. Patents are like that.

      Of course, it wasn't that simple - The Wright Bother's patent wars were kind of like Samsung Vs Apple, and only served to severely damage the US's ability to produce aircraft for nearly half a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

      GrpA

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    4. Re:Obvious prior art by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      That description would actually cover helicopters.

    5. Re:Obvious prior art by mmell · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is. A heavier-than-air machine or device which capable of sustained flight by generating a constant wind over carefully configured flight surfaces. I'll admit, I'd feel better flying in Boeing's product (and the amenities are way better), but if the folks at AIrbus try to actually patent their heavier-than-air flying machine as such, they're likely to run into a lot of prior art, preexisting patent claims, etc.

    6. Re:Obvious prior art by mmell · · Score: 1

      Yeah . . . the wing goes in a circle, but it's still a wing.

    7. Re:Obvious prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The horse is prior art if the patent is for a seated method of transportation to be used instead of walking.

    8. Re:Obvious prior art by rioki · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd feel better flying in Boeing's product (and the amenities are way better)

      I take offence at that. You do know that the interior design is 95% up to the airline to decide? You just flew shitty airlines and it has nothing to do with Airbus.

    9. Re:Obvious prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and birds

    10. Re:Obvious prior art by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You do know that you're arguing that the Wright brothers' glider could have had the same amenities as a Boeing Airbus A380, right? Because that's the comparison the person you're responding to was making.

    11. Re:Obvious prior art by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      I despise patent trolls, but reading your linked article, I see where the patent issues here were really only detrimental until the start of WW1. 1906 to 1917 is not "nearly half a century."

      Please, when framing arguments against patents or climate deniers, or anything else that is important to you, do not exaggerate or use such hyperbole. It lessens the impact of your argument, however true, significantly.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    12. Re:Obvious prior art by swb · · Score: 1

      Maybe only helicopters with a straight-line propulsion method?

      "A craft, that travels through the air, by means of lift generated through the passage of relative airflow across a curved wing section known as the aerofoil, and of sustained airflow by means of propulsion caused by the action/reaction of a propulsion unit, which propels the craft forward against drag caused by the craft's passage through the air."

      You might make an argument that the "patent" describes a straight-line (forward) propulsion method. A helicopter that relies on its rotors doesn't use a forward propulsion unit.

    13. Re:Obvious prior art by radarskiy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly, nothing was added in Bluetooth 2.0.

    14. Re:Obvious prior art by rioki · · Score: 1

      yes... yes... reading comprehension fail on my side...

    15. Re:Obvious prior art by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      A craft

      Yup, thats a helicopter.

      that travels through the air

      Yup, thats a helicopter.

      by means of lift generated through the passage of relative airflow across a curved wing section known as the aerofoil

      Yup, thats a helicopter.

      and of sustained airflow by means of propulsion caused by the action/reaction of a propulsion unit

      Yup, thats a helicopter. The action/reaction of a propulsion unit is necessary for turning the rotors, which is necessary for generating lift. Or you could include a gyrocopter here, which has no connection between the rotors and the motor, but still generates lift through them turning due to forward motion.

    16. Re:Obvious prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because the wing's sustained airflow is not maintained by the same propulsion that propels the aircraft forward. The rotors are propelled by the main engine, and their lift generally is the propulsion that moves the craft forward.

    17. Re:Obvious prior art by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've come to a more nuanced view on patent trolls. They aren't themselves so evil, they are basically hackers, but of the law instead of tech. The real evil is the patent system itself, not the hackers who take advantage of it. If by their actions they persuade giants like Samsung that patent law needs major reform, then that's good. It's not their fault that patent law is such a mess, it's the fault of giant corporate backers. They're dancing delicately, trying to have it both ways, that is, little people have to ask them for their patents, but they don't have to ask little people for theirs. The bigs are the reason the scope of patent law has been expanded beyond all sense. Possibly the biggest expansion was that originally a patent was supposed to cover a working implementation. A machine that achieves the same thing through a different method was not in violation. Now patents can cover a vague concept. That kind of patent may be shot down in court, but that it was granted at all is one of the problems.

      Hating a small patent troll is like shooting the messenger.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    18. Re:Obvious prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is. A heavier-than-air machine or device which capable of sustained flight by generating a constant wind over carefully configured flight surfaces. I'll admit, I'd feel better flying in Boeing's product (and the amenities are way better), but if the folks at AIrbus try to actually patent their heavier-than-air flying machine as such, they're likely to run into a lot of prior art, preexisting patent claims, etc.

      Prior art for "a heavier-than-air machine...": birds, insects, flying mammals, i.e., bats. We didn't invent flying. Might as well patent putting one foot in front of the other...

    19. Re:Obvious prior art by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've come to a more nuanced view on patent trolls. They aren't themselves so evil, they are basically hackers, but of the law instead of tech. The real evil is the patent system itself, not the hackers who take advantage of it. If by their actions they persuade giants like Samsung that patent law needs major reform, then that's good. It's not their fault that patent law is such a mess, it's the fault of giant corporate backers. They're dancing delicately, trying to have it both ways, that is, little people have to ask them for their patents, but they don't have to ask little people for theirs. The bigs are the reason the scope of patent law has been expanded beyond all sense. Possibly the biggest expansion was that originally a patent was supposed to cover a working implementation. A machine that achieves the same thing through a different method was not in violation. Now patents can cover a vague concept. That kind of patent may be shot down in court, but that it was granted at all is one of the problems.

      Hating a small patent troll is like shooting the messenger.

      The evil is the term of the patent.

      Change the term of software patents from 20 years to somewhere between 2 and 5 years (maybe hardware gets to be 10).

      Small companies and independent inventors can still develop something new and have a healthy head start in either selling it or developing it into a product.

      But 2-5 years isn't long enough to build an ecosystem, so you don't get a ridiculous situation where someone suddenly owns a piece of a fundamental technology like Bluetooth or MP3.

      Moreover it fixes the incentives regarding patents. The current 20 year term means you can patent and forget, hoping someone else doesn't the work of developing the idea and you can then swoop in for license fees, that's where the patent trolls come in.

      But a short term doesn't give you that option, the only way your patent is going to have value before it expires is if you make a push to build something with it, which is the kind of the point.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:Obvious prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, just no. Yes the system could have been better designed, but that doesn't make exploiting it right.

    21. Re:Obvious prior art by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Or a can of beans?

      I mean, it's a header to tell you what's inside the packet. How is a label on a can not telling you what's inside the can?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    22. Re:Obvious prior art by suutar · · Score: 1

      lots was added in 2.0, but the patents are about putting modulation information at the beginning of packets, and it seems like that's basic enough that bluetooth 1.0 might have already done that. I don't know bluetooth well enough to answer.

    23. Re:Obvious prior art by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The real evil is the patent system itself, not the hackers who take advantage of it.

      no, it's the people.

      your argument is basically that individuals can only be held responsible for a heinous act if it's unequivocally disallowed by the law. that's just a cop-out that allows people to take advantage / cause harm to others, or society.

      there will *never* be enough laws to cover every possible situation. that's why we have parents that hopefully taught us right and wrong and common sense

      . They aren't themselves so evil, they are basically hackers, but of the law instead of tech.

      no, they aren't hackers unless you mean that hackers are people that cause harm to others (only).

    24. Re:Obvious prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is that patents take forever to apply for, so they would technically expire while you're applying for them.

      Of course that's ridiculous, and you can try to solve that at the same time.

    25. Re:Obvious prior art by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      This is why I love Slashdot- just make an offhand analogy to something like airplane patents in a story about patent trolls, and eventually half the comments on the page are about airplanes. Can we just add "flying machines" to the tag list?

    26. Re:Obvious prior art by GrpA · · Score: 1

      I despise patent trolls, but reading your linked article, I see where the patent issues here were really only detrimental until the start of WW1. 1906 to 1917 is not "nearly half a century."

      Please, when framing arguments against patents or climate deniers, or anything else that is important to you, do not exaggerate or use such hyperbole. It lessens the impact of your argument, however true, significantly.

      By half-a-century, I mean half-a-century. Just because the original issues were resolved by around 1917, it takes a lot longer to recover from this damage - Consider this period as the original wound, and later time as healing to understand what I said - A lot of US based aviation decisions through to the end of WW2 and the early 1950's were very poor. This doesn't mean that the US didn't progress quickly, but it imported most of it's technology and ideas, even during WW2 - Often leaning on concepts and ideas that were present much earlier in german and english aircraft. Both the Germans and English had already developed jet engines during this time and it was only well into WW2 that the US began to develop unique and original ideas - eg, Turbosuperchargers.

      If you damage an industry for more than 10 years, the impact doesn't just go away because you remove the problem, it continues long after the event - Knowledge and skills that should have been obtained and gained during that period are lost and it takes a long time to recover a position within the international community equivalent to a country's original potential. The US had to import a lot of technology from other countries - There's a reason most aviation terms are French - Sad when you consider that the US invented the aircraft.

      Patents, when used as weapons or obstructions, only damage innovation.

      GrpA.

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    27. Re:Obvious prior art by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Code can, in theory, be made largely unhackable. The more features it has, the harder it will be, and there's always the five-dollar-wrench hack, but nothing in theory prevents people from securing the code.

      The law is always going to be hackable. Any significant law is always going to be far more complicated than code. It's dealing with people, not computers, who have far more different modes of operation.

      The law will always end up relying on a certain amount of goodwill from the people. We'd love to have the law say, "Look, just don't be an asshole," but defining "asshole" turns out to be tricky, and there will always be somebody willing to be just-asshole-enough to be legal.

      Worse... the law is retroactive: if you break it, the courts do something. Computer security prevents you from doing the illegal thing. That inherent delay creates inherent injustice. The delay also costs money. We've seen time and time again that it's been cheaper for companies to pay the extortion than to defend against it.

      So I think that yes, they are evil, and not merely hackers taking advantage of a broken system. Even the best possible system is imperfect. We rely on human beings to engage in a certain amount of decorum, if only for the game-theoretic reason that too much incivility results in a breakdown and they lose.

      Frequently, the patent trolls are breaking the law themselves, and counting on the delay to get away with it. That's pretty directly evil. And taking advantage of ambiguities in a system that must inherently be ambiguous, I'd say that's equally evil.

      Simply calling them "evil" doesn't really accomplish anything, of course. But it doesn't make them smart. The system is easily hacked. Anybody could do what they do. They're more akin to script kiddies than hackers.

    28. Re:Obvious prior art by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      Well... Amazon did successfully patent the one-click checkout idea, as obvious as that was.

      And they tried to patent shooting products with a white background.

      Obviously, our patent system is basically as bogus as AT&T's attempts to claim that it innovates, only the patent office is still pretending that it's not complete BS.

  2. Samsung most certainly by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    did not invent monitors . Is there another patent troll waiting to jump?

    1. Re:Samsung most certainly by mmell · · Score: 2

      Apple? After all, Samsung didn't invent rounded corners either.

  3. Real Reason for the Patent Gap by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real reason America has to catch up on the 'patent gap' is not so we'll be the most competitive, but so we can siphon as much money as possible from other countries' businesses. More patents means more lawsuit money coming into the country to offset the trade deficit. Gotta win at every statistical metric fathomable, dontcha know.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Real Reason for the Patent Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone should push for some kind of "trade deal" and require countries signing up to it to more closely replicate the US Patent system..... oh snap!

  4. Absolutely garbage claims by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I looked up the patent. Here is the meat of claim 1:

    a transceiver, in the role of the master according to the master/slave relationship, for sending at least transmissions modulated using at least two types of modulation methods, wherein the at least two types of modulation methods comprise a first modulation method and a second modulation method, wherein the second modulation method is of a different type than the first modulation method, wherein each transmission comprises a group of transmission sequences, wherein each group of transmission sequences is structured with at least a first portion and a payload portion wherein first information in the first portion indicates at least which of the first modulation method and the second modulation method is used for modulating second information in the payload portion, wherein at least one group of transmission sequences is addressed for an intended destination of the payload portion, and wherein for the at least one group of transmission sequences:
    the first information for said at least one group of transmission sequences comprises a first sequence, in the first portion and modulated according to the first modulation method, wherein the first sequence indicates an impending change from the first modulation method to the second modulation method, and
    the second information for said at least one group of transmission sequences comprises a second sequence that is modulated according to the second modulation method, wherein the second sequence is transmitted after the first sequence.

    This is absolute garbage. The most powerful claim is so generalized that it can be interpreted to cover anything the owner wishes. It's like patenting a mouse trap that consists of "a device with a mechanism such that mice are trapped".

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is absolute garbage" Yes, it's the US patent system.

    2. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With patents you don't look at the description, you look at the claims. This one has over 80 in 7 independent patches that are pretty specific. One could easily workaround this were it not part mandatory Bluetooth specs (I don't know if that is the case). But as far as patents go, this seems pretty OK, meaning these guys at least had a clear intention of implementing specific ways and not just cover an idea.

    3. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      It reads like it was generated by algorthmic patenting - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

    4. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0

      Patent law needs to change to it doesn't depend on people who don't understand the technology to decide how they apply.

      Particularly for older patents;

      If you buy a patent knowing there are potential infringers, you should not be able to make a claim against them. (hard to prove in many cases).
      If you buy a patent and have shown no attempts to license it, or produce a product with it, you should not be able to make a claim.
      OTOH, if you acquire a patent via inheritance or as part of buying a company, the more leeway should be given to enforce the patent rights.

    5. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With patents you don't look at the description, you look at the claims.

      That's not the description; it's an actual claim. GP even wrote "Here is the meat of claim 1".

    6. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by Drethon · · Score: 2

      At least a device comprising entirely of at least one mechanisim wherein at least one animal that is a member of at least the order of Rodentia that can at least hold at least the animal for at least a given amount of time.

    7. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is absolute garbage. The most powerful claim is so generalized that it can be interpreted to cover anything the owner wishes.

      This is the inherent problem with patents.

      They're written that way by design, and the US Patent Office doesn't evaluate them for being weak patents, they just confirm the check cleared.

      Patents stopped being about innovation decades ago, and now they're about playing a game of semantics to make it sound like you've invented something, when in fact you're describing something which has been done before, or is fairly obvious.'

      Patents are a bloody joke, simply because they are so vague and open ended ... and so many of them boil down to "a system and methodology for doing something we've all done before, but with a computer/cell phone".

      Patents aren't about innovation and invention, they're about corporate rent seeking in the vast majority of cases.

      And, I'm afraid I don't have sympathy for companies who engage in patent lawsuits when they lose one. It's not like they're victims here ... they're just getting screwed in the same game they try to screw other people in.

      Don't worry, governments will make sure the biggest company who contributes the most wins ... just like they always do.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Absolutely garbage claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 0

      I looked up the patent. Here is the meat of claim 1:

      a transceiver, in the role of the master according to the master/slave relationship, for sending at least transmissions modulated using at least two types of modulation methods, wherein the at least two types of modulation methods comprise a first modulation method and a second modulation method, wherein the second modulation method is of a different type than the first modulation method, wherein each transmission comprises a group of transmission sequences, wherein each group of transmission sequences is structured with at least a first portion and a payload portion wherein first information in the first portion indicates at least which of the first modulation method and the second modulation method is used for modulating second information in the payload portion, wherein at least one group of transmission sequences is addressed for an intended destination of the payload portion, and wherein for the at least one group of transmission sequences: the first information for said at least one group of transmission sequences comprises a first sequence, in the first portion and modulated according to the first modulation method, wherein the first sequence indicates an impending change from the first modulation method to the second modulation method, and the second information for said at least one group of transmission sequences comprises a second sequence that is modulated according to the second modulation method, wherein the second sequence is transmitted after the first sequence.

      This is absolute garbage. The most powerful claim is so generalized that it can be interpreted to cover anything the owner wishes. It's like patenting a mouse trap that consists of "a device with a mechanism such that mice are trapped".

      In what way? That claim can't be interpreted to cover, for example, mouse traps. So it's not quite as generalized as you say.

  5. Another Win... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For American global competition! Innovation leads to too great an expense. Why bother to do R&D when we can manipulate politically and sue through the judicial system. We aren't thugs, no really, we are just pursuing civil justice for humanitarian goals that happen to lead to large positive sums in the bank account.

  6. so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it not copyright infringement if you call yourself "Rembrandt" to begin with? Who holds the patents for that?
    To the relatives! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt

    1. Re:so.... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Kids, gather round! In ancient times, before American intellectual property technology saved the world, there was a "public domain" where after the creator's lifetime of benefiting from his art, it passed into the common culture for everyone to enjoy and build on. The name Rembrandt is a quaint reminder of those days.

  7. hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Rembrandt IP

    It is the same company that took down UWB bluetooth PHY

  8. Re:Republicans hate technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Republicans love technology. It replaces low skilled workers in the job market, helps keep them up to date on their stock portfolios, and boosts the military. Lefty loonies will blame anything other than themselves for being inept.

  9. After reading the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to conclude that the jury was populated by a group of retards.

    I mean, REALLY?

    I know the whole idea of having juries in America is so the prosecution and defense can essentially play a popularity game with them, and facts don't always have a lot to do with what could be perceived as proper end results, but wow... one could almost be forgiven for thinking that the USA is a banana democratic republic sometimes.

    1. Re:After reading the article by swb · · Score: 2

      A lawyer friend of mine once said "if you have to go to trial, you have already lost" because you have failed at every other level of persuasion and leverage and the only thing left is the variable outcome of a trial.

    2. Re:After reading the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the engineers or programmers in our office have ever been asked to sit on a jury. Conversation just came up the other day as we had 3 potential employees that got the call at one time. If they aren't going to be called on petty crimes, I cant imagine that are going to be part of a resolution on technology

    3. Re:After reading the article by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to conclude that the jury was populated by a group of retards.

      I'm American. I last served on a jury in 2005. I have been called to jury duty once since then and was luckily not picked for the case I was a possible juror for. I've served twice as a juror including in 2005 and the whole process has made me incredibly cynical about US "justice", which I deliberately put in quote marks there. Anyway, in my 2005 service, we were hearing a case that was surprisingly complex and involved multiple charges, but you might put it under the umbrella heading of "property damage". We were in the jury room one morning waiting to go hear the day's testimony and I remember being appalled as 3 of my fellow jurors all got into an argument with each other over who was stupider when it came to computers. Each guy in turn tried to top the other ones by showing how he was far stupider about computers than the other 2. Out of 13 jurors, which includes one alternate, I believe that only 2 of us had jobs that might be called "professional". The others were roofers and holders of various jobs that don't require any college education. These are the kinds of people who serve on juries. So I have no problem believing that the jury you refer to was totally made up of technological idiots who had no hope of understanding the complex issues presented to them, let alone rendering a just verdict.

      I'm not sure that a lot of people would be really comfortable if they truly understood the kind of horse trading that goes on in juries all the time. "Ok, we've got 7 votes for guilty on charge #2 and 5 votes for guilty on charge number #3, so how about we agree to vote guilty on #2 and innocent on #3 so we can all go home?"

    4. Re:After reading the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was personally involved in a patent litigation. I was one of the "authors" of the patents involved in said litigation. These arose out of startup I was involved in. The court of choice in these matters (in the US) is/was the East Texas district (at least it was when we were in play). I was told, pretty much up front, that this district is preferred because there's so few people out there who have a clue re: tech. They told me that anyone with a clue re: tech would be dismissed as a jury candidate (out of hand) by either side. I was also told in so many words, "the merits of your invention, or the infringement thereof, have little if anything to do with the court case if we go to trial. It's all about manipulating the jury to our side". The implicit argument being we want people who are totally lost (clueless) during the testimony so we can explain it to them in such a way that they believe us vs.the other side.

      Sadly, it makes sense given the rules of the patent "game". Note, I did not say I endorsed it or in any other way approved of it.

      In disclosure: I did actually make some $ from said litigation, although not nearly as much as the "owners" of the patent (less than 1% versus several 10's of %). And I was lucky to get that. Whole 'nother thread there...Also, I don't attach any ego to this. I tell people it's like I won a lottery, nothing more. Take my word on this, the world of patent litigation is very, very, foreign to us (the so called "STEM" types). It can be very lucrative, but, I'd argue you end up walking away thinking I need to take a shower....

    5. Re:After reading the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just going to point out that your example basically simplified to "I don't think a roofer is qualified to understand property damage". Criminals are supposed to be prosecuted before a jury of their peers. I would think an elitist like yourself would recognize that most criminals do not come from the highly educated/professional workforce, therefore neither do their peers.

    6. Re:After reading the article by rsborg · · Score: 2

      Out of 13 jurors, which includes one alternate, I believe that only 2 of us had jobs that might be called "professional". The others were roofers and holders of various jobs that don't require any college education. These are the kinds of people who serve on juries.

      This is a result of the adversarial juror selection process where legal teams from both sides, plaintiff and defendant, try very hard to remove any liabilities from the juror pool. Knowledgeable people are liable to be on a "side" and therefore will be removed by one side or another.

      That combined with the fact that, as a juror, you are not rewarded or likely to get compensation from your employer, means that people who have valuable knowledge, skills and generally good understanding of lots of stuff, try very hard to not be selected.

      I'm not sure there's a better way, other than perhaps to try to increase the overall average knowledge of the entire juror pool (either by free, compulsory 2ndary education) or by restricting the juror pool to prevent the "know nothings" from deciding the law on cases that could have society wide impact (a slippery slope that I probably wouldn't recommend).

      How do they do this kind of thing in Europe?

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    7. Re:After reading the article by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I have to conclude that the jury was populated by a group of retards.

      I mean, REALLY?

      By definition a jury is group of your peers too dumb, too incapable or too bored to get out of jury duty.

  10. Plenty of prior art . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    There was this sergeant when I was in the Army . . . among his nicknames was "greenteeth".

    I'm sure he has cause for suit against Rembrandt IP.

  11. You forgot something :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a device with at least a mechanism such that mice are at least trapped"

    Man, I'd like to lay my hands on such a troll's CEO.

  12. Re:Republicans hate technology by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure they do. It's why those marches against nuclear power, GMOs, and vaccines are so crammed with Republican men. Just look at the protest signs: "Another father for returning to the Neolithic."

  13. Aaand by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    This is why we can't have nice things.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  14. That's the ticket by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Appearing in court with the lawyer for the patent troll was his wife, Morgan Fairchild.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. One of my greatest regrets in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is having lived a block away from Intellectual Ventures, and not having trebuchet'd the place. I'm not into violence outside the boxing ring, but patent trolls need all their belongings smashed by angry mobs every time they win a lawsuit, until they learn to not win lawsuits.

    1. Re:One of my greatest regrets in life by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      patent trolls need all their belongings smashed by angry mobs every time they win a lawsuit, until they learn to not win lawsuits.

      This is completely and totally wrong. I don't agree with this at all.

      You smash them when they file lawsuits. Don't wait until they win them or they'll never learn.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:One of my greatest regrets in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking pussy.

  16. No meat there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The figures are just block diagrams. Of CPU etc. no meat there. The whole invention seems to be "change modulation method during session vs restarting session" which isn't an invention.

    "In existing data communications systems, a transmitter and receiver modem pair can successfully communicate only when the modems are compatible at the physical layer. That is, the modems must use compatible modulation methods. This requirement is generally true regardless of the network topology. For example, point-to-point, dial-up modems operate in either the industry standard V.34 mode or the industry standard V.22 mode. Similarly, in a multipoint architecture, all modems operate, for example, in the industry standard V.27bis mode. While the modems may be capable of using several different modulation methods, a single common modulation is negotiated at the beginning of a data session to be used throughout the duration of the session. Should it become necessary to change modulation methods, the existing data session is torn down, and a new session is negotiated using the new modulation method. Clearly, tearing down an existing data session causes a significant disruption in communication between the two modems."

    For example "To switch from type A modulation to type B modulation, master transceiver 64 transmits a training sequence 106 to type A tribs 66 a in which these tribs are notified of an impending change to type B modulation."

    This is exactly what the old modems did, they sent a message. Calling it 'restarting a session' vs changing modulation, is just words not invention. It's not restarting a session because the session begins with the tones and those are not repeated. So the 'inventor' mis-describes the technology at the time (dial up modems) they pretends to invent a fix.

    1. Re:No meat there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a disclosure, and doesn't form the claims. It's the part of the patent where you explain what it is you're patenting, why it's different from previous inventions ("knocking the prior art"). A lot of times, the disclosure is very much more broad than the claims, because anything that is in the disclosure can be cited as prior art in a future patent, or, more to the point, CANNOT be patented by someone else. So you describe broadly in the disclosure to prevent someone else from getting a patent on something that is just a little bit different from what you *claim*.

      The claims are where the specific aspects are.

  17. Patent ownership by Enry · · Score: 2

    Of course, the company that won the lawsuit wasn't the one who made the invention, or the one who patented it.

    Doesn't matter. Patent ownership can be bought and sold and could be considered an investment.

  18. Samsung should pull out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the article it looks like the town where the court case was held benefits greatly from Samsung's generosity: scholarships, festivals, hardware donations, etc.
    Samsung should just stop doing ALL of that for that town and take their generosity somewhere else.

    1. Re:Samsung should pull out by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it hurt them in jury selection- whether anyone paying enough attention to notice what samsung did for the town was removed to avoid bias, having an incidental effect of removing folks who pay attention.

    2. Re:Samsung should pull out by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, they should still roll into town and hand out paper certificates proclaiming gifts they bring, but then on the certificate deduct the same amount for paying this patent troll, so the net result is $0. Make a big show of handing these out, so everyone can plainly see that their shitty little town is getting nothing but hot air because of this patent troll they sided with.

      See how the parents like it when little Suzy and Johnny get certificates for scholarships which are worth nothing because the money went to a patent troll instead. And then Samsung should go to some other not-far-away town and give that same amount, in the form of these gifts (scholarships etc.) to them instead.

  19. Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    ...since I thought you were serious, but then I did read TFA which makes no mention (and apparently Morgan Fairchild is not even married right now and her real name seems to be the much less glamorous "Patsy Ann McClenny").

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was plausible though, wasn't it?

    2. Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      ...since I thought you were serious, but then I did read TFA which makes no mention (and apparently Morgan Fairchild is not even married right now and her real name seems to be the much less glamorous "Patsy Ann McClenny").

      Dude:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    3. Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by mbourgon · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the whippersnappers - it's an old (aka 80's) SNL skit. Jon Lovitz played a pathological liar, and the lies kept getting bigger.

        Hello, my name is Tommy Flanagan, and I'm a member of Pathological Liars Anonymous. In fact.. I'm the president of the organization!
      [...]
      And then I got a job in journalism, writing for the National Enquire.. er, Geographic! Yeah.. I was making twenty thousand a ye.. month! In fact, I won the Pulitzer Prize that year! Yeah, that's the ticket.
      [...]
      Oh, you'd be surprised how many famous people belong. In fact.. at one of the meetings I met my wife - Morgan Fairchild!

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    4. Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Funny how things change, eh? Substitute Nobel Prize for Pulitzer Prize, and it's relevant in 2015.

      On the other hand, looking at the state of journalism in 2015, maybe the joke is on the Pulitzer Prize.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Who lied about winning a Nobel Prize?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a Brian Williams skit to me.

  20. Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    The BlueTooth 2.0 specification was released in 2004.

    The patent trolls' patents were filed in 2009 and 2011. Both patents have a "priority date" of December 5th, 1997 which apparently means that even though they were filed AFTER BlueTooth 2.0 was released, only prior art from before 12/5/1997 can be considered. How is it that prior art can only be considered if it takes place 12 - 14 years before the patent in question was filed?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right there on the second page of the patent:
      "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/774,803, filed on Jul. 9, 2007, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/412,878, filed Apr. 14, 2003, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/205,205, filed Dec. 4, 1998, and which claims priority to and the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/067,562, filed Dec. 5, 1997, each of which is incorporated by reference herein."

      so they claim priority based on the provisional from '97. In theory, a continuation can add no "new matter". Without looking at the provisional patent app they filed, I can't say for sure, but a lot of provisional apps are pretty sketchy in terms of content, although they should at least disclose what the thing being patented is. No claims in a provisional app.

      However, this *is* a pretty long chain of continuations, and since applications were secret (until recently),maybe it's a way to generate a submarine patent.

    2. Re:Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by burtosis · · Score: 2

      It's a continuation in part. IANAPA but it's basically tacking on improvements over previous granted filings. Its done for many reasons, one of which allow a patent to continue to be held by upping the filing and thus expiration date. Another way is to file the application but dink around for years before it gets approved, thereby getting the original filing date as priority date, extending the expiration date, and being able to effectively troll people who didn't realize something infringing had already been tied up for years in the dark, wet, slime dripping from brick prison I imagine is common for uspto people to work in.

    3. Re:Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      This is kind of what I figured. There should be some strict limitations on this behavior. Using it for one year to hone your patent application? Fine. Using it for over a decade to make sure your patent applies to technology developed after your initial patent filing? Not good at all. Perhaps there should be a hard limit of one year between priority date and filing date.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      This is kind of what I figured. There should be some strict limitations on this behavior. Using it for one year to hone your patent application? Fine. Using it for over a decade to make sure your patent applies to technology developed after your initial patent filing? Not good at all. Perhaps there should be a hard limit of one year between priority date and filing date.

      It's already covered. When you file a continuation-in-part, the only claims that get the benefit of the earlier priority date are ones that were fully described in the initial application. Anything that wasn't described there doesn't get that priority date, and you only get the later date. So, for example, if I file a patent application that describes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on 1/1/2000, I can later file a continuation in part application on 1/1/2010 (provided the original is still pending) that adds using cinnamon raisin toast as the bread. If that later application has a patent claim of:

      1. A sandwich, comprising:
      a first slice of bread;
      peanut butter adjacent to the first slice of bread;
      jelly adjacent to the peanut butter; and
      a second slice of bread adjacent to the jelly.

      That would get a priority date of 1/1/2000 for searching for prior art. If I have a second claim of:

      2. The sandwich of claim 1, wherein the first slice of bread and second slice of bread are each cinnamon raisin toast.

      That would only get a priority date of 1/1/2010.

      So, it's even better than your suggestion - you don't even get a single day to hone your patent application. Anything new you add gets a later date.

    5. Re:Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by burtosis · · Score: 2

      What you posted is correct. However for technology that evolves continuously, such as the bluetooth standard/hardware, the cip effectively continues the original filing date in spirit as backward compatability and older standards become irrelevant to the market. It's often done in layers every few years as well. It kind of comes down to the if you gradually replace each part in a ship is it the same ship argument, there are those who say it is.

    6. Re: Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI, you're wrong about patent term calculation. Anything filed after GATT day in '95 gets 20 years from its earliest claimed filing date. (Note provisional applications do not count.)

  21. How it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patent (or copyright) trolls (ie any business whose primary source of income is via litigation of any kind) should not be allowed to exist. Period! Such businesses should have all assets siezed, and all patents/copyrights held should immediately become public domain. Patents and copyrights must be reduced to no more thgan 5 years before becomming public domain. No extensions whatsoever for any reason. Applied retroactively, meaning that any patents or copyrights over 5 years old become public domain immediately. Once in the public domain, nothing can ever again be pattented and/or copyrighted. Coptrighted works that are not available worldwide at any time become public domain immediately. Anyone applying for a patent must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no prior art and include concrete proof in their application filing. Also, patents must be very very specifically worded or they will be rejected.

    Of course our corporate-owned government will never allow this to happen!

    1. Re:How it should be by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I actually disagree, and I have a proposal which a corporate-owned government might actually like. I've posted this before in years past.

      It's basically a "pay-as-you-go" system. I'm going to concentrate on copyrights, as patents are a much stickier and more complex issue IMO.

      It works like this:
      You file for copyright protection with the USPTO, and you get it, for free, for 5 years. After that, your work goes into the public domain, unless you pay. For another 5 years of protection, you need to pay $10,000. After that, if you want more protection, another 5 years will cost you $1M. After that, $10M. And so on.

      The exact terms and dollar amounts can be argued, but the idea is the amount goes up exponentially. You get a little protection for free, but if your copyrighted work isn't generating much money, it isn't worth it to extend the protection beyond a certain point. Valuable works are worth protecting longer, but at some point the fees become too great to bother, and the work falls into the public domain. If Disney wants to spend tons of money getting the maximum protection for Steamboat Willy, that's fine, but other works won't be kept out of the public domain because of them, and most will be public domain in either 5 or 10 years.

      All the money from this will finance the USPTO's operations, and any excess can go into the Treasury so taxes can be kept low.

      Something similar could be done for patents, but for lesser terms, but the patent system still needs to be reworked completely to prevent submarine patents, overly-broad claims, and approval of patents with obvious prior art which the examiners never seem to know about, so this would only be one component of a patent system reworking.

  22. Claim 1 is always general. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    However, is this the claim that they are claiming was infringed, or was it one of the dependent claims?
    Virtually every patent written has a pretty broad independent claim.

  23. Better than the alternative by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have these guys bleed Samsung for a pittance, than the alternative to not having patentable standards and technology...

    Sure, RembrantIP didn't contribute to the invention, but they probably paid a nice sum to the inventor (who now can go invent something else, and not flip burgers).

    Now, having secured their financial interest in the a-priori standard of Bluetooth, other device manufacturers actually can make the jump and implement it, knowing some leacher doesn't come along and foil their business. The newcomer doesn't have the non-recurring costs to cover...

    For the end-user, this means I'm not tied to Samsung's proprietary protocol, and my Nokia BT speakers work even with Apple's device. The alternative is that only Samsung speakers work with Samsung phones.

    Sorry to rain on your two minutes of hate, but I prefer the lesser evil of patent trolls, to walled gardens. Apple fanbois need not reply to this, thanks.

    1. Re:Better than the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're under the impression that Samsung is claiming they own bluetooth, but that's not the case. The reason why they are being sued is not over competing claims of ownership, but rather since they implement bluetooth on their devices. There's a good case to be made that protocols for connecting multiple devices of different vendors should not even be patented, or if they are patented there should be open availability for implementation. If this law suit had started when bluetooth 2.0 was originally specified, it's likely that bluetooth wouldn't be ubiquitous at all, and there wouldn't even be a Nokia BT speaker on the market.

      We could compare this to the competition between firewire and usb; firewire has several clear advantages but it failed in the market as there were licensing costs. Will this lawsuit force a new standard to complete with BT and cause all your old peripherals to be useless?

  24. Prior art: telephone modems and av transponders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The first claim appears to be about sending a transmission from a master which starts out in one modulation format and tells the slave to switch to a second modulation format for the rest of the transmission.

    The problem solved is how to both support old, and get the advantages of new modulation formats in a compatible manner.
    Telephone modems have had this problem since the 80's when advanced in electronics made increasingly more complex modulation schemes possible.
    (Which BTW, is what happened here with BlueTooth.)

    Telephone modems do this by starting a training sequence at a low speed and them signaling the other end to switch to a higher speed.

    I'm not sure why these patents don't read on this old technology.

    Mode A versus Mode C aviation transponders may also use this technology.

    It's interesting to note that aside from the modulation thing, every packet I'm sending as I write this uses the same basic method.
    The start of each IP packet I send tells the receiver how to treat the next part in a recursive manner.
    The basic idea may date to the 1800's with early telegraphy.
    Or the Romans with visual signals.
    Or someone starting a sentence in voice and finishing in song.

    It might be interesting to see how many other examples this group can identify.

    1. Re:Prior art: telephone modems and av transponders by perlface · · Score: 1

      ...It might be interesting to see how many other examples this group can identify.

      Well you can start by asking Samsung's lawyers. One way (maybe the best way) to defend against an infringement lawsuit is to prove there is prior art that invalidates the plaintiff's patents. You can bet Samsung looked everywhere to find prior art that invalidated the patents they were accused of infringing. Apparently, they couldn't find any.

  25. I fail to grasp how this achieves anything by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    so you smash all their belongings. With their winning from the suit, they'll just buy new ones to replace the ones you smashed. Plus they get to have you charged with vandalism and sue you for damages. They get to have new things and make your life even more miserable, a total win-win for them.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:I fail to grasp how this achieves anything by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's why you have to smash all their belongings when they file the lawsuit, and make sure you wipe out all their data in the process. Then they won't be able to win the lawsuit. And make sure you conceal your identity well so you don't get prosecuted or sued.

  26. Venue Shopping by phorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Marshall is a small town that has been a hotspot for patent lawsuits for more than a decade now. US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who presided over this trial, oversees far more patent lawsuits than any other federal judge."

    There are many things that can be done to reform the patent system. Perhaps something that could be done to reform the "justice" system is to restrict/reform this bullshit cherry-picking of venue.

    1. Re:Venue Shopping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bug report closed. Reason: Not a bug.
      The whole point of a judiciary system is to move money to the wallets of those working in it. You might as well be submitting a bug report to nature because its leeches suck blood.

    2. Re:Venue Shopping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously in this case it seems that this district has a pretty clear bias; but the counter argument would be that they chose the venue because the judge, having presided over more of these types of lawsuits than any other judge, is the best qualified to understand the case.

  27. So after this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they go after all Bluetooth chip producers, or those who have used the chips? Samsung might have had an interest in ‘losing’ this in the interest of seeing one of its competitors eating it.

    1. Re:So after this... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Will they go after all Bluetooth chip producers, or those who have used the chips? Samsung might have had an interest in ‘losing’ this in the interest of seeing one of its competitors eating it.

      Of course not. They will only go after the Bluetooth chip producers that have tons of money.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:So after this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding to the sea of BS...
      Since I own the letter "B" and they are using my letter "B" instead of just calling the product luethooth, where do I send the invoice ?

  28. Beyond Patentdome! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Easy, just have a review board, at least half of which are knowledgeable in the field which the patent is applicable to. Oh wait, we can't afford to pay for the shoddy system we currently have.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  29. Patent trolls are useful arbitragers by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, yes some patent trolls are evil. But some are very good.

    The key service a Non-producing Patent holder provides is that they purchase patents from inventors. This allows the inventing company to convert their Ideas into cash. When companines die they may cease producing but their IP is still valuable. And it can be sold. It's that value that the shareholders of the company were investing in. So they were entitled to sell it. Patent "trolls" create this marketplace for Ideas and the money they pay goes on to be re-invested in other good things. Hence it maintains a market that funds spending on ideas.

    The patent trolls are arbitragers because they profit from non-liquidity of the market for ideas. IN doing so they do make it liquid. So that's good. they are creating real value where there was only theoretical value and keeping prices in balance.

    Then there's the evil patent trolls that take lame notions and therough legal machnations extort money from people who can't afford a legal challenge or rely on throwing darts and hoping for a big win.

    It's sometimes hard to tell these apart because sometimes a cherished technology we all love really does have a legitimate patent holder not an ogre behind it. The Eolas patent on all web browser plug ins seems like a reasonable case. If they can really show that the basic concept of the web browser plug in was not obvious and had no prior art and that they legitmately patented it with sufficient breadth of description then it really doesn't matter that this catches everyone by surprise. It's worth a fortune obviously but that too is not a reason to say it's wrong. It would be wrong if they got lucky an patented as trivial idea and then tried to extort people with it.

    It's these rare paydays that actually can keep the good arbitragers in bussiness. they may buy up lots of patents that never make them any money. All that money goes back to investors who created the IP and hopefully invest in more IP development in the future. The arbitragers get paid big once in a while for their investment in buying those worthless unmarketable patents.

    This sort of sounds like maybe that if they really did come up with the basic protocol and immplentations from which blue tooth was originated and the makers of blue tooth didn't have the right to sell that then this could be legite even if it's a big paybat for a non-produycing patent holder.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Patent trolls are useful arbitragers by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, yes some patent trolls are evil. But some are very good.

      The key service a Non-producing Patent holder provides is that they purchase patents from inventors. This allows the inventing company to convert their Ideas into cash. When companines die they may cease producing but their IP is still valuable. And it can be sold. It's that value that the shareholders of the company were investing in. So they were entitled to sell it. Patent "trolls" create this marketplace for Ideas and the money they pay goes on to be re-invested in other good things.

      I think I understand your argument. But I think there's an important distinction: Is dead company A selling the technology to new company B, or just the right to use the technology?

      If they're selling the technology, ie "company A knew how to do X, lets buy their IP so we can do X" then they're contributing something and new company B benefits from the exchange.

      But if the situation is more like "we want to do X, but it turns out company A has patents on X, therefore we need so pay off those patents" then I'm a lot more skeptical. Sure company A's innovative investors make some money off of B, but that money came from B's innovative investors so I'm not sure you're actually promoting investment in innovation. Not only that but the patents added a lot of overhead, cash that would have been better used innovating by both parties.

      It's sometimes hard to tell these apart because sometimes a cherished technology we all love really does have a legitimate patent holder not an ogre behind it. The Eolas patent on all web browser plug ins seems like a reasonable case. If they can really show that the basic concept of the web browser plug in was not obvious and had no prior art and that they legitmately patented it with sufficient breadth of description then it really doesn't matter that this catches everyone by surprise. It's worth a fortune obviously but that too is not a reason to say it's wrong. It would be wrong if they got lucky an patented as trivial idea and then tried to extort people with it.

      As to my point I'm very skeptical Eolas actually did anything to further the development of browser plugins. Why are they entitled to a fortune when they never actually contributed anything of value?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Patent trolls are useful arbitragers by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      Get out of here with your logic! This is slashdot!

  30. Eastern district of Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it interesting structures that actively encourage corruption of the state are allowed to stand unchallenged.

    1. Re:Eastern District of Texas by donkwich · · Score: 1

      If god forbid I'm ever in East Texas I want to see those buildings of empty offices that companies buy in order to sue in that venue. They're like a haunted house for patent demons to dwell in.

    2. Re:Eastern District of Texas by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      They don't even need to do that. If the alleged infringement took place in the district (i.e. if Samsung sold a product that allegedly infringed in East Texas), that's enough. Tivo (Cali-based) sued Dish (Denver-based) in the Eastern District.

  31. Republicans hate technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What does this have to do with Republicans?

  32. Patents have maintenance fees by tepples · · Score: 1

    U.S. patents already have such maintenance fees, just not with the exponential escalation you propose. An analogous maintenance fee for copyrights would have to be worded very carefully to pass muster under the Berne Convention's prohibition on formalities. One suggestion (the Public Domain Enhancement Act proposal from 2003) structured it as a property tax. Another would apply the maintenance fees only to exclusive rights beyond the Berne minimum, such as term extensions, anti-circumvention "protection", and criminal penalties for infringement.

    1. Re:Patents have maintenance fees by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The exponential calculation I propose is key to the whole proposal (esp. on the copyright side). Let companies keep things protected as long as they want, but keep jacking up the fees, to a large degree. Note that it doesn't necessarily need to be exponential as in x^n where n >= 3 (which seems to be the common meaning of the word), just a very large degree: perhaps n=1.5. This makes it a cash cow for the government, and also allows companies to keep things protected as long as they can afford it, which for highly profitable things could be quite a while. But then for things which aren't profitable, they fall into the public domain very, very quickly, which is totally unlike the current state. Unless someone pays up, things shouldn't stay out of the public domain for more than 5 years. And fuck the Berne Convention; it's obviously not serving society well, so it doesn't need to be followed. Since it was probably pushed mostly by the US anyway, since we're easily the biggest beneficiaries of copyrights and patents, it shouldn't be too hard to get the other signatories to agree to a new system.

    2. Re:Patents have maintenance fees by tepples · · Score: 1

      And fuck the Berne Convention; it's obviously not serving society well, so it doesn't need to be followed. Since it was probably pushed mostly by the US anyway

      Berne isn't an American thing. The USA didn't fully implement it until the late 1980s, roughly a century after it began in Europe.

  33. Eastern District of Texas by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    It's a famous "rocket docket" (i.e. cases can proceed rapidly there), and it's known for having plaintiff friendly juries in patent cases, so there's a lot of venue shopping going on.

  34. Re:Republicans hate technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Which explains why all mass shootings have been committed by Democrats.

  35. 15 million dollars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm ... I suspect Samsung could have them all killed for alot less :P

  36. Let Rembrandt IP know how you feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    taylor@rembrandtip.com

  37. Garbage Claims for a Garbage Jury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTA

    "The jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning a verdict that Samsung should pay Rembrandt."

    How is a jury of lay people supposed to understand modulation techniques to the point of being able to render a verdict in under one hour? That seems like rubberstamping for the plaintiff.

    Marshall, TX is a relatively small community, and many of their verdicts are overturned on appeal. There is a clear pattern of possible misconduct that federal investigators should be looking into.

  38. Not overturning jury verdicts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're wrong that those verdicts are being overturned. They almost always relate to legal errors from the judges. The ONLY basis for overturning a jury's verdict is determining that _no_ reasonable jury could have made such a conclusion based on the evidence. And note, for instance, that credibility of witnesses doesn't appear in the record in a strict sense and is usually a proper basis for supporting a jury's finding.

    See federal rule of civil procedure 50 if you need help with this

  39. How are MPAA and RIAA not Copyright Trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are MPAA and RIAA not Copyright Trolls?

    How are they different? MPAA doesn't produce any music. RIAA doesn't produce any music.

    The main definition of a Patent Troll is an entity whose main purpose is profit from law suits and patent enforcement. And doesn't make that patent available for licensing.

    Think of the MPAA and RIAA. Think of when they sue the "common man".

    These guys don't make music. Their only job is profit from lawsuits. And the common man could never license a copy of any Beatles or JayZ song. Never. That patent/copyright is not available.

    These guys are just Trolls.

  40. Re: Republicans hate technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All? You're a fucking moron.

  41. innovations will be develop in other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly why intel and other companies had to move r&d to ISRAEL and other countries to develop 2nd / 3rd generations of existing technologies. Heck they can skip the 300 million us consumers all together and sell to the billions in other countries.

  42. Actually by Burz · · Score: 2

    Nurse Quarantined By Christie Comes Back To Haunt Him On Vaccines

    Parents Fighting Against Gov't. Vaccination Agenda - The John Birch Society

    Scott Brown Rents Out Email List To Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist

    And lets not forget the John Birch-er conspiracy theory that fluoridated drinking water is a government attempt at mind control (whether or not certain fluoride compounds cause problems, the conspiracy angle is irrational).

    And lets not forget that, in general, denial of medical care on religious grounds is far and away dominated by right wing religious affiliation.

    So, by eliding the nuclear and GMO issues with vaccines (or other medical care) you're trying to erect a rather disingenuous straw man. If anything seems to go hand-in-hand with anti-vaccination sentiment, its freemarket ideology among the "sovereign individuals" crowd. I think Rand Paul would agree.

    Have a nice day.

    1. Re:Actually by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The John Birch Society, really? I didn't know they had websites in 1953! Were they propagated over AM radio?