I have been following news around patents lately. I have followed what happens on patent field because I am an inventor that has made some patents and being referenced on some other. The patent situation seem to be quite insane right now, especially on smartphone field.
I can agree the comment Patent law is a very imperfect tool for establishing moral culpability I saw in Linux Magazine. Whether you favor patents or not, it is important to face the fact that patent law is a construct of the business world. Patents protect opportunities for patent holders and restrict opportunities for others. What engineers need to know about patents article tells that most engineers know what a patent is broadly; for example, a bundle of rights related to an invention.
Patents are considered by many parties as vitally important to protecting intellectual property. Plenty of creativity occurs within the technology industry, and without patents, executives say they could never justify spending fortunes on new products. And academics say that some aspects of the patent system, like protections for pharmaceuticals, often function smoothly. It’s clearly demonstrably true that wielding patents to stop people copying protected methods obliges them to come up with new methods of their own. This is why patents are so widely supported by inventors, industry and governments. It’s an irreplaceable component of industrial organisation that produces and propagates invention. In April 2012, in its report on Intellectual Property, the US Patent Office (USPTO) concluded that the entire US economy relies on some form of IP, because virtually every industry either produces or uses it.
Patents have become a technology industry battleground as mobile-phone, tablet and computer makers try to lure consumers with constant improvements to their video and sound. Smartphones have become the focal point for lawsuits and licensing talks because the market is so huge, it is growing so quickly and cutting-edge technology is used in them. There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today. And this is for for an industry that is certainly less than 1% of US GDP. It definitely appears that there’s something of a “bubble” going on around smartphone patents. The explosive growth of the smartphone market means mobile patents are particularly valuable these days. Major players are increasingly going to court with one another over alleged infringements. It also makes for an astounding minefield for anyone new who wants to enter the space, especially if you don’t have a massive war chest to license or fight in court.
Patents have been a very important tool on industrial era to protect companies. Many people argue that the nation’s patent rules, intended for a mechanical world, are inadequate in today’s digital marketplace. Nowadays patents seem to be especially on on the software side especially old-fashioned and even harming economy. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recently published a working paper calling for the abolition of patents, saying they do more harm than good. Import bans over patents cause ‘substantial harm,’ FTC says.
Unlike patents for new drug formulas, patents on software often effectively grant ownership of concepts, rather than tangible creations. Today, the patent office routinely approves patents that describe vague algorithms or business methods, without patent examiners demanding specifics about how those calculations occur or how the software operates. The patent office has a reputation for being overworked, understaffed and plagued by employee turnover, and employees concede that some of their work is subjective. As a result, some patents are so broad that they allow patent holders to claim sweeping ownership of seemingly unrelated products built by others. And it happens more and more often. Yes, the system is frequently gamed, it generates avoidable costs, it’s unnecessarily complex, and it creates many absurdities. There Are Too Many Patents In America.
Recent research supports view that patent troll activity is rising — costing America a fortune in wasted legal fees and lost jobs. Patent trolls are a plague. And they are every day armed with more and more patents. ‘Patent trolls’ cost other US bodies $29bn last year, says study. And this figure does not include indirect costs to the defendants’ businesses such as diversion of resources, delays in new products, and loss of market share. Direct costs are large relative to total spending on [research and development], which totalled $247bn in 2009, implying that NPE patent assertations effectively impose a significant tax on investment in innovation. Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars. The problems with the current system are so pervasive, that many companies say, that the courts, lawmakers and Silicon Valley must find their own fixes.
In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years — an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings. Apple’s CEO thinks that patent system is broken in a fundamental way. It allows companies to exploit standards-essential patents — patents that must be licensed in order for products to function according to accepted industry standards. The Patent Wars: Infographic confirms that everyone in the tech world is way too sue-happy.
Apple vs. Samsung patent verdict was a lot of talked about event lately. Apple-Samsung trial has clarified that patents are the “lifeblood of business” and putting powerful short-term legal protections under inventions is overwhelmingly more convincing than any mooted alternative. Apple v. Samsung case highlights money to be made from patent litigation. Linux Magazine editor is amazed at how little all the “authorities” seem to know. Is there a lesson in all this? A huge team of lawyers billing US$ 200 to US$ 800 per hour erected weeks of elegant arguments and a jury thought about the whole thing for 21 hours and 37 minutes. The 109 pages of jury instructions contained 700 questions, which means that jury reached consensus on one point approximately every 33 seconds.
The Apple v. Samsung case really ought to shame the industry. It let a jury, also known as “people off the street”, decide on liability and damages amounts and kept a lot of lawyers in alligator skin shoes. And while it is probably the lawyers that benefited the most from the whole ordeal, no one else is. And I’m not convinced that any of these patents are actually valid. Of course, Samsung argued that Apple also copied, which is no doubt true, but just because Apple got away with it doesn’t make it okay. Apple and Samsung would be better off — and their consumers would be better served — if the tech giants took their epic patent battle out of the courtroom and into the marketplace. The best thing about the case is that it has exposed just how awful the patent situation has become in the US.
A new patent case has just started. Microsoft v Google judge could shape the world in new patent punchup because that could finally tell tech companies how much a standards-essential patent is worth is about to kick off in the US. Microsoft filed a lawsuit in 2010 that challenges Google-owned Motorola over the its use of standards-essential patents (SEP) in court cases. Microsoft and Apple have tried to argue that Samsung and Motorola shouldn’t be allowed to use their SEP in court cases. Both European and US authorities have also been investigating whether any firm should be allowed to get the law involved in SEP but haven’t come to any conclusions yet. Motorola has tried to get 2.25 per cent per device out of Apple and Microsoft. The patents this case is are related to for example to H.264 video coding. Redmond is accusing Motorola of violating its responsibilities to standards organisations to license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates (FRAND).
423 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft’s Surface Revenue
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/14/0613253/motorola-wants-225-of-microsofts-surface-revenue
“On the opening day of a patent trial between Microsoft and Google-owned Motorola Mobility, Motorola filed a brief (PDF) arguing that the WiFi tech central to the case is also critical to Microsoft’s new Surface tablet. Motorola says royalties totaling 2.25% of all Surface revenues is a good starting point.”
“Without 802.11 capability, the Surface tablet would be unable to compete in the market”
Comment:
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said “I’m going to fucking kill Google. I’ve done it before and I can do it again.” Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it’s more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple patent portfolio will continue to be strengthened. The company describes its own now bought a total of 1,024 patents from Rockstar, the consortium of which it is part of a number of other big technology companies.
The entire smartphone industry spent around $ 20 billion USD (about 15.6 billion euros) on buying patents in the last year.
Patents are more and more used for attacking other manufacturers.
Source: http://www.tietoviikko.fi/kaikki_uutiset/apple+osti+kilon+patentteja/a857551?s=r&wtm=tietoviikko/-20112012&
Tomi Engdahl says:
HTC “happy” with Apple settlement, slams media estimates
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-htc-apple-idUSBRE8AJ0DZ20121120?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=56505
Taiwan’s HTC Corp is happy with its patent settlement with Apple Inc, but regards media reports on details of the licensing agreement as “outrageous”, chief executive Peter Chou told reporters on Tuesday.
The companies did not disclose details of the settlement or the licensing agreement, but HTC said it will not change its fourth-quarter guidance.
Apple sued the Taiwanese handset maker in 2010, its first major legal salvo against a manufacturer using Google’s Android operating system. Since the suit, a patent war has engulfed competitors including Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Google’s Motorola Mobility unit.
Tomi Engdahl says:
HTC CEO happy with Apple patent settlement, calls price estimates ‘outrageous’
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/20/3670176/htc-apple-cross-licensing-price-estimate-outrageous-ceo-peter-chou
The two companies recently settled their differences by dropping all litigation between them and signing a cross-licensing patent agreement that will last for 10 years.
After the agreement was made public, speculation was rampant as to how much HTC — which is widely assumed to be paying Apple a fee as part of the deal — would give Apple per phone sale.
HTC has today called estimates that it’s paying $6-$8 per phone to Apple “very, very, wrong.”
“we have a very, very happy settlement and a good ending.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
‘No iPhone without Samsung patents’
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/11/133_125191.html
The chief executive of Samsung Electronics has expressed confidence about the ongoing patent battle with Apple, saying that no smartpohone can exist without patents from Korea’s technology giants.
“The truth never lies. Without Samsung-owned wireless patents, it’s impossible for the Cupertino-based Apple to produce its handsets,’’ said Samsung’s mobile chief Shin Jong-kyun in a brief meeting with local reporters on his way to the company’s main office in downtown Seoul, Wednesday.
“As you know, Samsung is very strong in terms of portfolios of wireless patents,’’ the executive added.
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Your criticisms are completely wrong”: Stallman on software patents, 20 years in
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/your-criticisms-are-completely-wrong-stallman-on-software-patents/
Free software guru makes a still-unpopular plea with new urgency—just ban them.
“So many stupid insults—and mistakes!” shouted Richard Stallman, the father of the free software movement. “I proposed a way to solve the problem! It’s elegant, and it gets right to the point. Your criticisms are completely wrong.”
The speaker he was denouncing, Professor John Duffy of the University of Virginia, had been defending software patents to the assembled crowd a moment ago. Duffy was actually proposing reforms, but as was the case with most speakers at this legal conference, Duffy’s reforms weren’t quite what Stallman was looking for. He was looking for a “safe harbor” for software—essentially, a total ban on any patents that touched on software.
Duffy raised the specter that some things might not be invented at all without patents, in software and other fields. “The only thing worse than a patented technology that burdens the public is not having a technology at all,” he said. Sure, some software patents were a pain, but others were protecting important work. “The question is, will you get very serious research that is patent-motivated? Speech recognition, for example, is very patent-intensive.”
In Stallman’s view, the idea that society might be able to eliminate “bad patents” while keeping good ones is a kind of Jedi mind trick. Offering patents as a reward for software development—a system where the prize is a right to shut down someone else—is fatally flawed.
“Consider the MP3 patent,” said Stallman. “That caused a lot of harm. It’s not trivial, it came from a research institute. But we can fund research institutes in other ways.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Should Inventions Be Automatically Owned By Your Employer?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/02/230247/should-inventions-be-automatically-owned-by-your-employer
“The article theorizes that patent law did not develop an inventions made for hire doctrine, because inventive activity was almost exclusively perceived to be performed by individuals. It goes on to suggest that, as patentable inventions today are generally perceived to be invented collaboratively,”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ready for ANOTHER patent war? Apple ‘invents’ wireless charging
Wait, it’s already a thing? Sorry, can’t hear you over the sound of our lawyers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/03/apple_charging_patent/
Apple is trying to patent wireless charging, claiming its magnetic resonance tech is new and that it can do it better than anyone else. This would be cool if its assertions were true.
Apple’s application, numbered 20120303980, makes much of its ability to charge a device over the air at a distance of up to a metre, rather than requiring close proximity. The Alliance For Wireless Power, which also touts long-range juicing, will no doubt be comparing Apple’s designs to its blueprints.
Apple’s patent application was filed in November 2010, before the alliance was established, but well after tech startup WiPower applied for its patent on the very concept of wireless charging in 2008.
Meanwhile, the patents behind the Consortium for Wireless Power’s technology are up for grabs
And don’t forget the Nokia Lumia 920, like a few other handsets already out there, already do wireless charging.
Regardless of who ends up with eCoupled, the world ought to brace itself for another epic patent battle – although not quite yet: the public is still very unsure it wants wireless charging
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent troll strikes NYT, media industry over mobile web sites
http://paidcontent.org/2012/12/06/patent-troll-strikes-nyt-media-industry-over-mobile-web-sites/
A mysterious shell company is suing the New York Times and other major media outlets for patent infringement because they offer mobile apps and a website. The companies now face the unpleasant choice between paying the firm to go away or saddling up for a multi-million dollar legal fight.
In a series of complaints filed in Delaware, Clouding IP LLC claims the media outlets are infringing on two patents from 2005 and 2007 entitled “technique for enabling remote data access and manipulation from a pervasive device.”
Clouding IP, formed in February of 2012, points to readers’ ability to read the New York Times’ website and mobile apps through a smartphone as evidence of infringement
This is not the first time the New York Times has been targeted by a so-called “patent troll” — shell firms backed by investors who make a business of obtaining old patents and then suing those who refuse to license them. Last year, a company called Boadin Technologies sued the Times, Bloomberg and others for using the common feature known as autocomplete. The Times elected to fight that suit, and recent court filings show the parties agreed to dismiss the case with each side paying their own costs.
In August, the NYT’s general counsel described the troll activities as a “tax for being on the Internet.”
The trolls represent a dilemma for cash-strapped media businesses because it can cost millions in legal fees to defend a patent suit. Paying the unwanted license fee may be a cheaper option than going to court; however, doing so may encourage other trolls to seek their own payments.
Tomi Engdahl says:
I have a great idea. If you can find a way to make it work, I’m suing you. What a great way to avoid building something like a working model and get all the benefits of working thru the details without doing the work.
Source: http://paidcontent.org/2012/12/06/patent-troll-strikes-nyt-media-industry-over-mobile-web-sites/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple-Google Team Up for $500 Million-Plus Kodak Patents Bid
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-08/apple-joins-google-in-500-million-plus-bid-for-kodak-patents.html
Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Google Inc. have joined forces to offer more than $500 million to buy Eastman Kodak Co. (EKDKQ)’s patents out of bankruptcy, said people familiar with the situation.
The two companies, competing for dominance of the smartphone market, have partnered after leading two separate groups this summer to buy some of Kodak’s 1,100 imaging patents, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the process is private.
Unlikely partnerships are typical in patent sales because they allow competitors to neutralize potential infringement litigation.
“Apple and Google learned a lesson from the Nortel’s auction,”
The two groups had separately offered less than $500 million for Kodak’s portfolio. They now teamed up to offer more together
Kodak obtained commitments for $830 million exit financing last month, contingent on its sale of the digital-imaging patents for at least $500 million.
The patents for sale relate to the capture, manipulation and sharing of digital images. Kodak is selling them to fund a turnaround after seeking Chapter 11 protection in January.
In court documents, Kodak has said the patents may be worth $2.21 billion to $2.57 billion, based on an estimate by patent advisory firm 284 Partners LLC.
“The portfolio is actually worth much less because it has been widely licensed,” Ehrlickman of IPofferings said.
Tomi Engdahl says:
US patent lawsuits now dominated by ‘trolls’ -study
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/patents-usa-lawsuits-idUSL1E8NA55M20121210
For the first time, individuals and companies that do not themselves make anything – commonly known as “patent trolls” – are bringing the majority of U.S. patent lawsuits, according to a study by a California law professor.
This year, about 61 percent of all patent lawsuits filed through Dec. 1 were brought by patent-assertion entities, or individuals and companies that work aggressively and opportunistically to assert patents as a business model rather than build their own technology, according to a paper by Colleen Chien, a law professor at Santa Clara University.
That compares with 45 percent in 2011 and 23 percent five years ago.
“It’s pretty dramatic,” Chien told Reuters via email. “It means more suits are being brought by entities that don’t make anything than those that do.”
Increasingly, the lawsuits are hitting startups.
About 35 percent of startups that have raised $50 million to $100 million have been sued on a patent, Chien said, as have 20 percent of the companies that have raised $20 million to $50 million.
Many technology companies are eager for reforms that would make it harder to assert patents.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Facebook, Google, Zynga Ask Courts To Reject Patents On Abstract Ideas That Plague Tech Innovation
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/reject-abstract-patents/
Just because you take an abstract idea and say you do it “on a computer” or “over the Internet” doesn’t mean you deserve a patent, according to an amicus brief filed on Friday by Google, Facebook and six other tech companies. It asks the courts to reject lawsuits based on patents for vague concepts instead of specific applications because they rack up costs and retard innovation.
The amicus curiae brief lets parties outside of a case volunteer information to help a court make a decision.
The amici companies are trying to convince the courts that “This issue is critically important in the high-tech context” and there is grave danger to the tech industry if such lawsuits are allowed to progress.
The crux of their argument is that:
“Many computer-related patent claims just describe an abstract idea at a high level of generality and say to perform it on a computer or over the Internet. Such barebones claims grant exclusive rights over the abstract idea itself, with no limit on how the idea is implemented. Granting patent protection for such claims would impair, not promote, innovation by conferring exclusive rights on those who have not meaningfully innovated, and thereby penalizing those that do later innovate by blocking or taxing their applications of the abstract idea…The abstractness of computer-related patents bears much of the blame for the extraordinarily high litigation and settlement costs associated with such patents. It is, therefore, imperative that courts enforce Section 101′ s “screening” function (Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303) early in most cases, to save defendants and the courts from the unnecessary expense of fully litigating or settling cases- like this one that should be dismissed at the outset.”
The companies claim that “abstract patents are a plague in the high tech sector” and that a “disturbing amount of patents” also fail these tests. Threatened by these lawsuits, innovators have to either gamble on litigation that could force them into huge settlements, or pay steep licensing fees for tech they already developed on their own. These impose a tax on innovation and lead to higher prices for consumers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nokia and Ericsson surprising appeal – “not for the Community patent”
11.12.2012 11:38 The European Parliament will vote on today throughout the EU-wide introduction of a Community patent.
The Community patent refers to the entire EU-wide harmonization of the patent system. It is designed for decades.
Nokia and Ericsson are suddenly turned to the last minute of the Community Patent proposal and submit a letter to Members of Parliament to reject the proposal.
In particular, the Community Patent proposal Article 5a has paid Nokia, Ericsson and BAE’s attention. According to the companies, it creates legal uncertainty and can enable the “forum shopping” ie, the application author can choose the most favorable to the court complaint handling.
- Community patent would be detrimental to the Member States involved in the employment and economic situation. EU companies remain face significant disadvantages compared to foreign competitors, Nokia and BAE write.
- In short, the proposal for a European to some to be a bad business point of view, and we urge you not to vote in favor of December 11, day, as Nokia and BAE’s as Ericsson, the letter states.
Patent law is a key technology companies lobbying target, as the sector struggles taking place in consumer markets, but increasingly also in courts.
Source: http://www.digitoday.fi/yhteiskunta/2012/12/11/nokian-ja-ericssonin-yllattava-vetoomus–ei-yhteisopatentille/201243569/66?rss=6
Tomi Engdahl says:
Judge denies Apple request to ban Samsung phones
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/17/apple-loses-samsung-phone-ban/1776777/
A federal judge late Monday dealt Apple a major blow in its landmark battle with Samsung, denying the company’s request to ban U.S. sales of smartphones from the South Korean electronics giant.
“Apple’s evidence does not establish that any of Apple’s three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand,” Judge Koh wrote in the order.
“The Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s design patents caused that loss,” the judge wrote.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Kodak Agrees To Sell Digital Imaging Patent Portfolio For $525M To Consortium Of 12 Licensees, Including Apple, Google, Facebook
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/19/kodak-to-sell-digital-imaging-patent-portfolio-for-525m/
Companies banding together to acquire patents may seem odd when several of the companies in the list are also — or have recently been — engaged in patent litigation with each other, but taking to the courts is a long drawn out and expensive process, and there’s no guarantee of success at the end of the day, so joining forces to license IP at least provides the companies involved with certainty and fixed costs.
Rival companies banding together to license patents is also a smart move as it helps keep the overall price of the patent portfolio down — avoiding a costly patent bidding war (as in the case of Nortel’s patent stash last year, which sold to a consortium that did not include Google for a massive $4.5 billion).
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners
An alphabet soup of patent trolls is threatening end users with lawsuits.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/
When Steven Vicinanza got a letter in the mail earlier this year informing him that he needed to pay $1,000 per employee for a license to some “distributed computer architecture” patents, he didn’t quite believe it at first. The letter seemed to be saying anyone using a modern office scanner to scan documents to e-mail would have to pay—which is to say, just about any business, period.
“So you’re claiming anyone on a network with a scanner owes you a license?”
Ars has acquired several copies of the AdzPro demand letter; the only variations are the six-letter name of the shell company and the royalty demands, which range from $900 to $1,200 per employee.
Tomi Engdahl says:
FTC, DOJ Focus Attention on Patent Assertion Entities
http://internetassociation.tumblr.com/post/37639394646/ftc-doj-focus-attention-on-patent-assertion-entities
Today, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are holding a joint workshop to investigate the impact of Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) on innovation and competition.
Last year, patent wars among major technology companies were all the rage due in part to PAEs, otherwise known as “patents trolls.”
As this year comes to a close, PAEs continue to plague the Internet industry.
So, what are PAEs? These entities have no actual operation and are solely formed to create litigation by filing high numbers of patent infringement suits.
It’s no secret that the Internet plays a critical role in economic development and job creation. However, PAEs are crippling the Internet’s ability to generate continued economic growth.
Fun facts: Patents covering inventions applicable to businesses on the Internet are litigated nine times more often than other patents, even though PAE’s only win 12 percent of the time.
Mobile trends and predictions for 2013 « Tomi Engdahl’s ePanorama blog says:
[...] phones. Forbes sees that Amazon, Microsoft, Google, will all introduce branded mobile phones. Patent battles are far from over. We will see many new patent fights on smart phones and [...]
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google Withdraws Patent Claims Against Microsoft
http://allthingsd.com/20130108/google-withdraws-patent-claims-against-microsoft/
Google today filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission to terminate its attempt to stop Microsoft from using video compression technology on the Xbox.
Microsoft wants to license two standards-essential patents for H.264 that Google controls now that it owns Motorola — but not on Google’s proposed royalty terms.
However, Google is still contesting Microsoft over one patent in the ITC case that is not part of an industry standard.
Tomi Engdahl says:
CES: CEA boss pushes for ‘ninja’ innovation approach
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2234873/ces-cea-boss-pushes-for-ninja-innovation-approach
LAS VEGAS: THE HEAD of the Consumer Electronics Association is calling on small firms and startups to help drive innovation in the market.
Other items on the CEA’s agenda include efforts to stop “patent troll” litigation campaigns and further efforts to cooperate with studios and media companies to develop platform-neutral cloud services
Tomi Engdahl says:
Hey guys, those smartmobe sales bans? Just give it a rest. NOW
US Patent Office, DoJ fed up with Apple, Samsung, Moto battles
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/doj_pto_standards_essential_patent_policy/
Owners of patents that are essential to implementing communications standards can only ban rivals’ products in rare and specific cases. That’s the latest common sense thinking from the US Justice Department and the US Patent Office.
The two bodies have taken the unusual step of releasing a joint policy statement on standards-essential patents (SEP) as their use in smartphone and tablet court cases, usually to shoo away Apple, has increased. The statement didn’t name any names, but fandroid firms such as Samsung and Google-owned Motorola Mobility have been known to throw claims of SEP infringement back at the iPhone maker when it takes them to court.
“The ITC, may conclude, after applying its public interest factors, that exclusion orders (sales injunctions) are inappropriate,” the two organisations added.
Ideally, SEPs are licensed to companies on a fair and reasonable basis so that standardised technologies covered by the patents, such as 3G mobile networking, can be implemented by competing manufacturers and will therefore just work for users regardless of the product they choose to use.
“Although we recommend caution in granting injunctions or exclusion orders based on infringement of voluntarily FRAND [fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory] encumbered patents essential to a standard, DOJ and USPTO strongly support the protection of intellectual property rights and believe that a patent holder who makes such a FRAND commitment should receive appropriate compensation that reflects the value of the technology contributed to the standard,” they said.
Tomi Engdahl says:
2012 Patent Rankings: IBM On Top, Google Spikes
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/10/1929245/2012-patent-rankings-ibm-on-top-google-spikes
“It’s official: IBM has dominated the U.S. patent race for two decades.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/
It’s game over for a patent troll that sued nearly 50 big retailers.
Soverain isn’t in the e-commerce business; it’s in the higher-margin business of filing patent lawsuits against e-commerce companies. And it’s been quite successful until now. The company’s plan to extract a patent tax of about one percent of revenue from a huge swath of online retailers was snuffed out last week by Newegg and its lawyers, who won an appeal ruling that invalidates the three patents Soverain used to spark a vast patent war.
The ruling effectively shuts down dozens of the lawsuits Soverain filed last year against Nordstrom’s, Macy’s, Home Depot, Radioshack, Kohl’s, and many others
All of them did nothing more than provide shoppers with basic online checkout technology. Soverain used two patents, numbers 5,715,314 and 5,909,492, to claim ownership of the “shopping carts” commonly used in online stores. In some cases, it wielded a third patent, No. 7,272,639.
For online commerce, “the mother of all patent battles”
Soverain’s plans were always bigger than Amazon and bigger than Newegg. It wanted nothing less than to extract a patent tax from the entire retail sector, using three patents it claimed covered pretty much any use of “shopping cart” technology.
Those lawsuits are toast now, thanks to Newegg’s appeal victory
The main piece of prior art used at the appeals trial was the CompuServe Mall, and Newegg’s lawyers, led on appeal by Ed Reines of Weil Gotshal, argued that system hit each and every patent claim in Soverain’s patents.
Just saying “do it on the Internet” isn’t a novel invention, the appeals court ruled
Tomi Engdahl says:
Creator Of The X-Plane Flight Simulator Seeks Help Fighting A Patent Troll
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/02/creator-of-the-x-plane-flight-simulator-seeks-help-fighting-a-patent-troll/
Austin Meyer, creator of the popular and ultra-realistic flight sim X-Plane is facing a potentially destructive lawsuit by an East Texas patent troll, Uniloc. Meyer, who has worked on the simulator since 1995, isn’t dealing with a claim against his simulator or the game mechanics within. Instead, he’s being sued for using a simple copy-protection system found in almost all Android programs.
“Speaking for Laminar Research, we used only the technology that was provided to us by Google for copy protection in our Android App ‘X-Plane’… we used exactly the copy protection Google gave us!”
Mojang received a similar complaint from Uniloc for using a central licensing server in Minecraft. Meyer claims that Google, for their part, will not assist in the lawsuit.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Laminar Research, Creators of X-Plane, Are Being Sued for Patent Infringement
http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/
A patent that you hold is not a product that you created.
It is the right to sue someone that actually does the work to create and market a product.
Holding a patent does not mean that you actually did anything.
It only means that you claim that you thought of something that you can sue other people for actually doing.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Court to Consider When Software Can Be Patented
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324906004578290313667148712-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., will hear arguments Friday over a fundamental question that has vexed the technology industry for nearly two decades: When is a piece of software patentable?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tim Cook reportedly opposed patent suits against Samsung
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57568584-37/tim-cook-reportedly-opposed-patent-suits-against-samsung/
Now Apple’s chief executive, Cook was against the lawsuits because of Samsung’s role as a key supplier of components for the iPhone and iPad, Reuters reports.
As its relationship with Samsung has become strained, Apple reportedly tried to secure exclusive access to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp. smartphone chips by making an investment offer in the custom chip maker in excess of $1 billion. The offer was ultimately rejected, but such an arrangement would likely have helped Apple reduce its dependence on Samsung for mobile device components.
Tomi Engdahl says:
In a Fireside Hangout on Google+, Obama says we need more patent reform and computer education
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/02/15/in-google-hangout-president-obama/
Fried’s first question to President Obama centered around patents. As high-tech startups are an important “engine” of the American economy, she’s concerned that when companies become successful, the so-called software patent trolls will appear — that is, firms that collect patents for the sole purpose of litigation against companies that can’t afford patent defense because it’s too expensive. Fried asked Obama about his stance on software patent abuse and whether he would support limiting patents to a term of 5 years.
Obama agreed and said that a couple of years ago, his administration helped make some patent reforms by working with Congress to pass legislation, known as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. He believes that the patent trolls are those who aren’t producing anything themselves and are just hijacking what others have for profit. He says that patents should be long enough that it protects intellectual properties, but should be balanced that it doesn’t stifle innovation.
However, Obama thinks patent reform has only gone half of the way to where it needs to go and that additional stakeholders are needed in order to build consensus and create smarter patent laws.
The President says that technology is changing so fast and it’s important to keep up with the trends.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Patents That Threaten 3-D Printing
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/20/0317250/the-patents-that-threaten-3-d-printing
“We’ve watched patents slow down the smartphone and tablet markets. We’ve seen patent claims thrown against Linux, Android, and countless other software projects. Now, as 3-D printing becomes more capable and more affordable, it seems a number of patents threaten to do the same to the hobbyist and tinkerer crowd.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
How Big Business is Stymying Makers’ High-Res, Colorful Innovations
http://www.wired.com/design/2013/02/3-d-printing-patents/?pid=1994&viewall=true
If you’re waiting for desktop additive-manufacturing technology to move closer to professional-level results, be prepared to wait for a very long time.
The past year was a breakout for desktop 3-D printing.
But the year ended with a legal hiccup. Formlabs will be dealing with a patent infringement lawsuit brought against them by 3D Systems, one of the biggest players in the industry. The hobbyist segment of the industry has been built on the back of expired patents, but as the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out, many patents that will be required to advance the state of the art will not expire for years or even a decade.
We’ve uncovered 10 patents that could severely stifle innovation in the low-cost segment of the 3-D printing market and keep you from making colorful, smooth-finished figures and precise, articulating parts. These patents cover core technologies and ease-of-use features, and could take momentum from the upstarts and return it to the entrenched companies.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Patent System: Fix What’s Broken, Don’t Break What’s Working
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/02/21/the-patent-system-fix-what-s-broken-don-t-break-what-s-working.aspx
Recent studies from the Department of Commerce and the Brookings Institution show that patents drive job creation, productivity, and economic growth today. Given the benefits of the patent system, it is important to ensure that it functions well. As I mentioned in my remarks today, there is no question that the U.S. patent system has tremendous strengths but also significant weaknesses.
All of us – private companies, the USPTO, Congress and the courts – share responsibility for taking steps to improve the operation of the patent system. From Microsoft’s perspective, the key opportunities relate to increasing transparency, curbing litigation abuse, and improving patent quality.
Specific reforms we support
Current sensor for multi core cable « Tomi Engdahl’s ePanorama blog says:
[...] Technology. I consider this as a good thing because if this sensor works well there are no patent lawyers trying to stop you from using in in some real application. The sensor will sense 10 watts [...]
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google and MPEG LA settle long-running VP8/H.264 patent dispute
http://www.zdnet.com/google-and-mpeg-la-settle-long-running-vp8h-264-patent-dispute-7000012289/
Summary: In 2011, Google announced its intention to abandon the popular H.264 video standard in favor of its own open-source codec, VP8. That inspired legal threats from H.264 patent holders. Today the two groups announced a settlement.
Sometimes patent wars end, not with a bang but a whimper.
That’s the case with the long-running dispute over Google’s VP8 codec, which was settled today after two years of legal machinations.
The real question now is how Google will make use of VP8, now that the legal cloud has been lifted.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google called the MPEG-LA’s bluff, and won
http://www.osnews.com/story/26849/Google_called_the_MPEG-LA_s_bluff_and_won
A few days ago, Google and the MPEG-LA announced that they had come to an agreement under which Google received a license for techniques in VP8 that may infringe upon MPEG-LA patents (note the ‘if any’). Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time.
Why is this surprising? Well, because this means that VP8 is a hell of lot safer and more free from possible legal repercussions than H.264 itself. What many H.264 proponents do not understand, either wilfully or out of sheer ignorance, is that those H.264 licenses embedded in Windows, OS X, iOS, your ‘professional’ camera, and so on, do not cover commercial use. If you shoot a video with your camera in H.264, upload it to YouTube, and get some income from advertisements, you’re in violation of the H.264 license (and the MPEG-LA made it clear they had no qualms about going after individual users). The extension the MPEG-LA announced (under pressure from VP8 and WebM) changed nothing about that serious legal limitation.
This makes it clear that Google won big time with this agreement, since the restriction on commercial use does not seem to apply to VP8; there’s no mention of it in the press release, and the proposal mentioned above affirms it, so it’s pretty safe to assume that VP8 is now far safer and better protected than H.264.
H.264 license issues « Tomi Engdahl’s ePanorama blog says:
[...] is highly patented. It seems that H.264 is a legal minefield where you can be careful where to walk. You have been [...]
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple Touch Sensor Panel (TSP) Key Technology – GG (DITO & SITO) Key Patent Analysis -
http://www.displaybank.com/_eng/research/report_view.html?id=865&cate=4
Tomi Engdahl says:
Twitter gets a patent on… Twitter
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/19/4124888/twitter-gets-a-patent-on-twitter
Although Twitter famously has a pending patent on the familiar “pull-to-refresh” gesture, the company may have just acquired something more valuable: a patent on the Twitter messaging service itself.
The new patent issued today with Twitter founders Jack Dorsey and Biz Stone listed as inventors, and broadly describes a messaging service in which users follow each other and sent messages don’t have specific recipients, but are rather sent and displayed to those followers by the system itself.
That’s exactly how Twitter works, of course — it’s definitely more of a broadcasting system than a direct messaging service, and the patent claims explicitly make reference to “broadcasting an update message” several times.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nokia Officially Lists Patents Google’s VP8 Allegedly Infringes
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/23/2242231/nokia-officially-lists-patents-googles-vp8-allegedly-infringes
“Google just settled video codec patent claims with MPEG LA and its VP8 format, which it wants to be elevated to an Internet standard, already faces the next round of patent infringement allegations. Nokia submitted an IPR declaration to the Internet Engineering Task Force listing 64 issued patents and 22 pending patent applications it believes are essential to VP8. To add insult to injury, Nokia’s declaration to the IETF says NO to royalty-free licensing and also NO to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
You Don’t ‘Own’ Your Own Genes
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/26/1848234/you-dont-own-your-own-genes
“Cornell University’s New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don’t “own” their own genes”
Tomi says:
Taking a stand on open source and patents
http://google-opensource.blogspot.fi/2013/03/taking-stand-on-open-source-and-patents.html
At Google we believe that open systems win. Open-source software has been at the root of many innovations in cloud computing, the mobile web, and the Internet generally. And while open platforms have faced growing patent attacks, requiring companies to defensively acquire ever more patents, we remain committed to an open Internet—one that protects real innovation and continues to deliver great products and services.
Today, we’re taking another step towards that goal by announcing the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge: we pledge not to sue any user, distributor or developer of open-source software on specified patents, unless first attacked.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Defending Honor of Web, Rackspace Sues ‘Most Notorious Patent Troll’
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/04/rackspace-parallel-iron/
Google isn’t the only one leaping to the defense of Hadoop, the open source software that underpins so many of the biggest names on the internet.
The Texas-based cloud computing outfit Rackspace just launched a very public attack against a company that has made a habit of suing web giants over their use of Hadoop. Parallel Iron — a shell company incorporated in Delaware — has sued everyone from Rackspace to Facebook to LinkedIn, claiming their Hadoop installations infringe on three of its patents, and on Thursday, Rackspace took to the web to announce a kind of counter suit against Parallel Iron, calling the company “the most notorious patent troll in America.”
The move comes a week after Google — which owns many of its own patents related to Hadoop — vowed not to use at least some of these patents against the open source platform and called on others to erect additional “patent shields” around the technology, hoping to protect this fundamental software from “trolls,” companies that exist solely to make money through patent infringement suits.
Since last summer, Parallel Iron has filed over 23 lawsuits against companies over their use of the Hadoop File System
Rackspace has now sued the company back
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ahoy! Google asks US gov’t to help sink patent ‘privateers’
New, mutant strain of patent trolling on the rise
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/05/google_vs_patent_privateers/
Patent trolls are bad enough on their own. But increasingly, companies that otherwise develop technology and sell products have begun outsourcing their patent portfolios to patent trolls as a strategic weapon against their competitors, and that can be even worse.
So say Google, BlackBerry, EarthLink, and Red Hat in comments filed jointly with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday.
Dubbing the practice “privateering”, the companies claim it not only distorts competition in markets, impedes innovation, and imposes unnecessary and burdensome costs, but it may also violate US antitrust law.
But a patent troll, by definition, doesn’t make anything. It therefore has no need to license anyone else’s patents and nothing to fear from patent counter-suits, so it has much more incentive to litigate its patent claims aggressively.
For technology companies, those claims can be shockingly costly to defend against. According to Google and its cosigners, the median cost of defending even a relatively small infringement suit will likely run into the millions, and that’s just the legal fees.
“Trolls use the patents they receive to sue with impunity – since they don’t make anything, they can’t be countersued,” Bye wrote. “The transferring company hides behind the troll to shield itself from litigation, and sometimes even arranges to get a cut of the money extracted by troll lawsuits and licenses.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft licenses second huge handset maker in a week, China’s ZTE
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/microsoft-licenses-second-huge-handset-maker-in-a-week-chinas-zte/
For several years now, Microsoft has been asserting that any company making Android phones owes it money, because Microsoft has patents that cover various aspects of those phones.
Last week, the company said that the Taiwanese contract manufacturer Foxconn, which makes 40 percent of consumer electronics worldwide including a variety of Android and Chrome-powered products, had agreed to license its patents. Today, the company announced a patent-licensing deal with another huge Asian electronics company: Chinese telecom ZTE.
Microsoft says 80 percent of Android phones sold in US now pay for its patents.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Judge rules that Motorola’s patents aren’t worth the $4 billion a year it demanded from Microsoft
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/25/4267830/judge-rules-motorolas-patents-arent-worth-the-4-billion-a-year-it-wanted-from-microsoft
A judge presiding over a legal battle between Microsoft and Google-owned Motorola issued a ruling today that valued elements of Motorola’s patent portfolio far below what the company felt they were worth — by a difference of over $3.9 billion a year.
The two companies have been locked in a legal battle over Microsoft’s use of several Motorola patents that are part of the 802.11 Wi-Fi and H.264 video standards. As such, they’re considered standards-essential patents, and must be licensed to other parties at a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) rate. According to Redmond’s attorneys, Motorola violated that pact by asking far too much to use the patents in question — its initial request was 2.25 percent of the price of each product using the patents (the Xbox 360 and any computer running Windows 7 were just two specific examples named).
According to today’s filing, the court’s final determination is that the appropriate RAND royalty rate for Motorola’s H.264 standards-essential patents was 0.555 cents for each end product sold, while a reasonable range would stretch up to 16.389 cents.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola?
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/26/4271432/does-anyone-know-why-google-bought-motorola
The products weren’t great and the patents overvalued
Why did Google spend $12.5 billion to purchase Motorola Mobility?
The biggest problem is that Motorola’s patent portfolio doesn’t appear to be worth anything close to what either company assumed: the judge in the Microsoft v. Motorola patent case ruled yesterday that Redmond owes a paltry $1.7 million in annual royalties for using Motorola’s standards-related Wi-Fi and video-encoding patents in every Xbox 360 and Windows 7 PC sold, rather than the $4 billion Motorola had originally demanded
it would take 3,235 years for Microsoft’s royalties to pay off Google’s $5.5 billion valuation of Motorola’s patent portfolio.
“These rulings show that the portfolio isn’t nearly as valuable as Google thought it was,”
That’s a significant blow to Google’s interest in using Motorola’s patent portfolio as a defensive measure against an increasingly-litigious Apple.
“We acquired Motorola to level the playing field in patent attacks against Android and draw on Motorola’s long history of innovation,” a Google spokesperson told The Verge.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft hit by patent lawsuit over Skype
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57582349-38/microsoft-hit-by-patent-lawsuit-over-skype/
A patent enforcement company called CopyTele is suing the software giant, claiming patent violations involving encryption and security.
Tomi Engdahl says:
TV gesture patent bombshell: El Reg punts tech into public domain
Vulture North’s droid gives lawyers the finger
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/07/gesture_control/
Gesture control to operate next-gen home electronics is the next patent battleground – so last month we asked you lot for hand movements you’d like to see protected from the lawyers as prior art. Here are the most popular, and practical, suggestions
Rather than allow individual gestures to be patented, thus closing off useful and obvious body shaking to a select few manufacturers, we vowed to publish the best gestures to put it all into the public domain – thus keeping it out of the hands of patent-filing lawyers.
We asked our crack team of cybernetic engineers to roll out the El Reg android and demonstrate the ways in which you’ll be controlling your TVs in the next decade
Tomi Engdahl says:
Twitter granted patent on pull-to-refresh, promises to only use it defensively
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/21/4350826/twitter-pull-to-refresh-patent-innovators-patent-agreement-announced
Can the Innovator’s Patent Agreement bring peace to the patent wars?
Twitter was just officially granted a patent on the ubiquitous pull-to-refresh gesture — a touch interface concept the company acquired when it purchased Tweetie developer Atebits in 2010 and hired founder Loren Brichter, who invented the move.
But like many engineers, Brichter was worried about rampant abuse of patents in the tech industry, particularly software patents. “I have plenty of feelings about the patent system and how broken it is,” he says. To alleviate those concerns, Twitter agreed to only use his patent defensively — the company wouldn’t sue other companies that were using pull-to-refresh in apps unless those companies sued first. That’s why Brichter had filed for the patent in the first place. “I realized that I’d invented something valuable and I could have a bullet in the chamber, god forbid.”
That original defense-only provision developed over time into what Twitter is calling the Innovator’s Patent Agreement— a contract between the company and its engineers promising that any patents developed during their employment will only be used defensively
“[Engineers] were going around saying we’re worried about what patents mean,” said Twitter IP attorney Ben Lee, who drafted the IPA and guided it through the revision process. “The IPA is an expression of the values of the company.”
“The problem is how to define defensive purposes.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, that definition in version 1.0 of the IPA is fairly broad: Twitter can still sue any company that files, threatens, or even voluntarily participates in a patent lawsuit against Twitter, its affiliates, customers, suppliers, or distributors
That’s a pretty wide open list of targets — Twitter can certainly sue Apple, which has filed several patent lawsuits against Android smartphone vendors in the past few years. It can also sue Google, whose Motorola subsidiary has sued Apple and Microsoft. Yahoo? Check. Microsoft? Check.
“There’s a million good reasons that maybe you went offensive,” says Lee. “But once you’ve done it, there has to be some ramification for it — in this case, for 10 years, you’ve come out of the IPA.”
“I would hope the relationship between [Twitter] and the engineer is different. The engineer has checks and balances.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Kim Dotcom accuses Google, Facebook, and Twitter of violating his two-step security patent
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/22/4357500/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-step-verification
Hours after Twitter rolled out support for two-step verification, Kim Dotcom has claimed credit for inventing the security feature. In a series of tweets, the embattled Megaupload founder points to a patent dating back to 1997 as proof for his claim, and accuses companies including Google, Facebook, and Twitter of infringing his intellectual property rights.
“I never sued them,” Dotcom continues. “I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me.” The faint threat is followed by a plea to the named companies for financial support in Dotcom’s ongoing fight against extradition to the US.
Dotcom has a record of controversial, attention-grabbing public statements, and this latest revelation may be nothing more than an attempt to garner sympathy for his cause.