Slashdot Mirror
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.
Wouldn't Bluetooth 1.0 be the most obvious prior art ever?
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
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.
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.
Apple? After all, Samsung didn't invent rounded corners either.
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."
Appearing in court with the lawyer for the patent troll was his wife, Morgan Fairchild.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.