Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Case Could Shift Power Balance In Tech Industry

Posted by samzenpus on from the makers-and-takers dept.

An anonymous reader writes A lawsuit between Apple and Google could drastically change the power balance between patent holders and device makers. "The dispute centers on so-called standard-essential patents, which cover technology that is included in industry-wide technology standards. Since others have to use the technology if they want their own products to meet an industry standard, the companies that submit their patents for approval by standards bodies are required to license them out on 'reasonable and non-discriminatory',(paywalled) or RAND, terms." If Apple wins, the understanding of what fees are RAND may decrease by at least an order of magnitude.

25 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Apple has little to do with this by khoker · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's Google VS Microsoft. The first line of the link says as much. Apple only (rightfully) sided with Microsoft. They aren't involved in the lawsuit.

    1. Re:Apple has little to do with this by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's Microsoft v. Motorola. Microsoft is the plaintiff, and the patents which Google acquired when it purchased Motorola Mobility are what's at issue, specifically what Google charges Microsoft to use them.

      But yeah, trying to say it's Apple v. Google is a troll.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Apple has little to do with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's a part of an "industry standard" then the patent should be FREE. Don't like that? Don't make your invention part of something that no one can avoid.

      While I agree, aren't Microsoft and Apple at least arguing in that direction (they want it to be cheaper and their foe wants the licensing to remain as prohibitively and market-entry-denyingly expensive as possible)?

    3. Re:Apple has little to do with this by brausch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've got it backwards/sideways/confused/something.

      Apple and Microsoft are on the SAME SIDE and are arguing FOR CHEAPER licenses.

      RTFM. It's only about one page long.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    4. Re:Apple has little to do with this by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      I don't understand why novel and useful inventions should be licensed for peanuts(preferably free apparently to M$ and Apple although IIRC M$ actually does own some standards patents unlike Apple who have nothing non-obvious, novel and useful) while utterly useless and obvious sh!t(complete w/prior art in the physical world) like unlock is somehow worth trillions.

      Because "slide to unlock" isn't necessary to communicate voice data and IPv4 packets to an LTE mast. If you can't see the difference between a patent on a radio or transmission scheme, and a design patent for a gimmicky touchscreen feature then you really have no business commenting on standards essential patents and the licensing schemes that surround them.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  2. Patent fees are always RAND... by Jax+Omen · · Score: 5, Funny

    specifically, RAND(toomuch,waytoomuch).

    1. Re:Patent fees are always RAND... by Jax+Omen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? Downvoted for a bad programming joke?

    2. Re:Patent fees are always RAND... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's because you had a . instead of a ; at the end of your code.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  3. Hmm... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't say I'm rooting for either party here, but I hate the idea of SEPs in general... If a method is literally the only permitted way to do a thing, should it be patentable?

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Hmm... by erice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can't say I'm rooting for either party here, but I hate the idea of SEPs in general... If a method is literally the only permitted way to do a thing, should it be patentable?

      If there is only one way to do it, then it is a fact of nature and can not be patented. Also, if the standard has been published, that counts as prior art so no new patents can be applied there. However if I choose to create a standard that requires your existing patent, why should that give me the power to invalidate your patent?

      Standards bodies usually try to avoid patents but this is often not practical because there are so many patents and the best solution is often patented.

    2. Re:Hmm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that companies spend money doing R&D on this stuff, and for once it's actually real stuff they are inventing that is genuinely non-obvious and has practical uses. We all benefit if the standard can make use of the best technologies available, otherwise we would have to wait for patents to expire to get things like faster mobile internet access.

      The RAND rules are supposed to make sure that those patents are available to everyone at a reasonable cost. The issue here is that most companies just cross-licence their own patents on exchange for using the RAND ones for free, but Apple doesn't have any to licence and doesn't want to pay the (reasonable) monetary fee instead.

      All Apple has are a bunch of largely worthless design patents that can easily be worked around. It tried to buy in to the Rockstar patent abuse group but it wasn't enough.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Hmm... by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Standards bodies usually try to avoid patents but this is often not practical because there are so many patents and the best solution is often patented.

      No they don't.

      A standards body works like this - industry wants to come up with a new standard for some reason - perhaps faster part, new technology whatever. So the standards body convenes a group of people from industry who then argue out the merits and the specifications of the new technology standard. Along the way, patents get hashed out - and a lot of politicking goes on in getting your patent in the standard.

      When it comes to patents and standards, you have two options - you could not offer the patent for licensing and have the standards body work around it, or you can have it become part of the standard, with the caveat that you must license to anyone and everyone as FRAND terms.

      Depending on the patent, one way may be better than the other, but in general, it's usually nicer to have people paying you so you make it FRAND. Which means at times there's a lot of back scratching to get your patent in the standard.

      Most standards are patented. Ethernet, WiFi, etc., they usually all have some form of license fee to be paid.

  4. Its Google versus Microsoft by Old97 · · Score: 2

    Can't the submitter at least read the article they are submitting? Moron.

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    1. Re:Its Google versus Microsoft by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      Can't the submitter at least read the article they are submitting? Moron.

      You must be new here.

      --
      Sig for hire.
  5. Paywalled FT article by P1h3r1e3d13 · · Score: 2

    Google cache of Financial Times: Patent case could shift power balance in tech industry

  6. Microsoft vs Google by The+Raven · · Score: 2

    I find it interesting that nobody is disputing the validity of the patents, but only the amount you can charge for them. Both sides want patents to remain strong.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
  7. "standard-essential patents” by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any “standard-essential patents” should be public domain (or as close as possible, as Elon Musk did with the Tesla battery circuitry), or they should not be included in the standards. Period. FRAND/RAND is code for forming a club where the existing players get to play, but for which there is still a large - potentially huge) cost to join said club - and therefore an artificial barrier to entry into any existing market.

    Either make it free to license, or leave it out of the standard, please.

    1. Re:"standard-essential patents” by Derekloffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That just simply wouldn't work. As another poster already pointed out, if you deny them the patent, then they have no reason to involve themselves in researching such, or standardizing. It would also simply encourage even MORE patent trolling as any patent holder can now say their patent isn't FRAND/RAND. The whole point of FRAND/RAND patents is to encourage companies to cooperate, make standards, and not patent troll each other.

    2. Re:"standard-essential patents” by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      You have to have pretty strong regulations for patents to even exist. In an anarchy, you're allowed to implement whatever you want, without groveling for anyone's permission. So libertarians, if they super-concerned about avoiding being conflated with anarchists, have to weigh all the evils and decide which is the least bad. But it'll definitely involve someone's liberties being infringed.

      Once possible decision as "Libertarian Tyrant" would be to point a gun at the patent holders' heads and say they're required to license against their will. My justification would be that they submitted the patented tech to the standards body, knowing that it would become a burden and risk on other parties' liberties. Doing that signals an implicit endorsement of other people using the tech, so the patent holder OPTED to sacrifice their government-granted monopoly.

      If they don't like that, then they should abstain from offering their "forbidden tech" to standards bodies, and if they learn of someone else doing it, they should be should be suing them (and possibly the standards body too) for inducing infringement.

      Another way to go, might be to just get rid of patents. There's already so much overwhelming incentive to invent things, that it's basically impossible to even prevent much less needing incentive.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:"standard-essential patents” by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Ok, if you give essential patents for free, won't you also have to give insignificant patents (e.g. slide to unlock) for free?

      I think you are confusing de facto standards (like "slide to unlock") and de jure standards (like "RFC 793").

      The first is "I'd like to do this because everyone else is doing this, and it's neat". The second is "In order to get your device to talk to the Internet at all, you have to implement this standard".

      The term "standard-essential" in this context refers to de jure standards.

      While it might be a pain in the rear if you can not "slide to unlock", the only thing that it prohibits you from doing is having an unlock method which has been established in people's minds as a Schelling Point. You being unable to used that Schelling Point just means that you aren't going to be able to easily convert people to using your product as an easy replacement for your competitors product.

      "Reverse engineering for interoperability" does not apply to "interoperability with ingrained human habits".

  8. It's Microsoft vs. Google... by ndykman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, to be fair, it's Microsoft vs. Motorola which was acquired by Google, which still holds the patents. Apple filed a brief in support of Microsoft. The ruling that Apple is support of upholding is that Microsoft only owed a couple of million a year for it's use of those standards in its products.

    Motorola sought an amount of four billion a year plus 20 billion in back fees. Google and Qualcomm is arguing the latest ruling was over-reaching, and that they need the ability to charge more. But, given the initial demand, it is clear they want to charge orders of magnitude more for these patents and to seek relief from previous sales. It's pennies versus dollars and that adds up.

    And frankly, Google should know better. It's benefited enormously from these technologies being available at a low cost. I know this goes against the Slashdot mindset, but Microsoft is on the right side of the argument here.

  9. FT Paywall by godel_56 · · Score: 2

    BTW, if you register with FT you can get a limited number of articles a month for free (5?), although I had to go to the front page first before it would let me look at the story.

  10. Re:What does it all mean? by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Funny

    The degree to which Apple is a monopoly in any market is dependent entirely upon the point that a particular fanboy is trying to make that day. They can either be obscure and on the ropes or they can be nearly taking over the planet. It all depends on what that day's agenda is.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  11. angers me by hoolaparara · · Score: 2

    This one pisses me off because these type of standards mostly do actual valuable stuff but because they aren't 'essential' we have companies that try to devalue them. These same companies sue for billions for shit like slide to unlock and a slightly less shitty version of a shitty filesystem that became the standard for removable media because of illegal monopoly behave and use them to extort millions from say android phone makers.

  12. RAND Paul by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

    Given that RAND stands for "Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory," is it a bit ironic ironic that Ron Paul's son is named Rand?

    I can't say yet who I'm voting for in 2016, but I can tell you one guy I'm NOT voting for. Hint: I just mentioned him.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.