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

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.

Comments

Absolutely garbage claims

[wiredlogic]

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".

Re:Obvious prior art

[GrpA]

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

Re:Obvious prior art

[rioki]

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.

Re:Obvious prior art

[wbr1]

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.

Re:Filed After Bluetooth 2.0 Was Released

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Eh commenting to cancel my "interesting" mod...

[mbourgon]

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!