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.

13 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 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
  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?

  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. "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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.