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.

3 of 126 comments (clear)

  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 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"