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).
415 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Zombie patents raid TI’s wallet for $US3 million
The ghost of 3Com still stirs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/23/zombie_patents_raid_tis_wallet_for_us3_million/
Yet another patent troll non-practicing entity (NPE) has accumulated important wins in US courts, with US Ethernet Innovations (USEI) scoring a $US3 million win against Texas Instruments in a Texas US District Court.
The company, which acquired patents from 3Com, had filed its suit against Texas Instruments in 2011, complaining that TI’s system-on-chip technologies violated a bunch of patents covering basic Ethernet technology.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Supreme Court Rules Against Software Patents
Decision creates gray ‘generic’ term
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1322823&
Tomi Engdahl says:
Judge says there’s no such thing as a ‘Patent Troll’
Apple banned from calling litigant a ‘Bounty hunter’, ‘corporate shell’ or ‘Troll’
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/04/judge_says_theres_no_such_thing_as_a_patent_troll/
A Californian judge has barred Apple from describing a litigant as a “patent troll”, a “bandit” or a “privateer”.
Apple may not refer to GPNE as a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “privateer,” “bandit,” “paper patent,” “stick up,” “shakedown,” “playing the lawsuit lottery,” “corporate shell game,” or “a corporate shell.”
Apple is allowed to call GPNE a “non-practicing entity,” “licensing entity,” “patent assertion entity,” “a company that doesn’t make anything,” or “a company that doesn’t sell anything.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple Can Try to Trademark Store Layout, EU Court Says
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-10/apple-can-try-to-trademark-store-layout-eu-court-says
Apple Inc. (AAPL:US) may be able to seek a German trademark that would stop retailers mimicking the layout of its flagship stores, the European Union’s top court said.
Apple can try to register an image of its store layout if it can show that it can distinguish its goods from others, the EU Court of Justice said. Apple is challenging a refusal by the German patent office to accept the picture as a trademark. A national court will decide the final details of the appeal.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google, Dropbox, and Others Forge Patent “Arms Control Pact”
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/07/11/0138219/google-dropbox-and-others-forge-patent-arms-control-pact
Patent trolling is a serious irritant and financial drain on many big tech companies — but those same companies can’t guarantee that their own future management won’t sell the patents they own to a ‘non-practicing entity’, especially in the case of sale or bankruptcy. That’s why a number of tech giants, including Google and Dropbox, have formed the ‘License or Transfer Network,’ in which a patent will automatically be licensed to everyone else in the network in the event that it’s sold to a third party.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google, Dropbox band together to fight patent trolls
A new group seeks to provide its members insulation against attacks by patent trolls
http://www.itworld.com/it-management/426487/google-dropbox-band-together-fight-patent-trolls
Google, Dropbox and a few other high-tech firms have come up with a new way to help defend themselves against patent trolls.
Patent trolls, or “non-practicing entities,” are companies that buy up old patents and try to monetize them by accusing others of infringement. They usually request a one-off licensing fee to end a lawsuit, something many companies reluctantly pay because it’s cheaper than defending the claim.
The practice has become a significant problem in the high-tech field, in part because of the complex nature of modern software and hardware.
In an attempt to stop it, six high-tech companies have banded together to launch the License on Transfer Network, or LOT Network.
Members of Lotnet retain full ownership and licensing rights of their patents, but they agree to provide each other with a royalty-free license should any of the patents ever be sold.
That should insulate them from any lawsuits brought by the patent’s new owner.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft blasts sueball at Samsung in Android patent royalty spat
Claims payment halted after Redmond bought Nokia mobe biz
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/01/microsoft_v_samsung/
Microsoft filed a lawsuit against Samsung in a US court on Friday, claiming the Korean firm is in breach of an earlier cross-licensing agreement relating to mobile technology patents.
The two companies sealed their licensing deal in 2011, back in the days when Microsoft was threatening to sue all and sundry over patents covering aspects of Android smartphones.
Redmond has since inked similar deals with dozens of Android device vendors, all without revealing any dollar amounts or even which patents it’s actually asserting – although it says it has around 200 that apply.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Inside the stressed-out, time-crunched patent examiner workforce
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/31/inside-the-stressed-out-time-crunched-patent-examiner-workforce/
Every year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office handles more than 500,000 new patent applications. With those figures only increasing, some patent examiners report they feel too crunched for time. Now, a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that the pressure to make decisions too quickly may be one reason the patent office grants “bad” patents — approving weak applications that never should’ve been granted in the first place — that allow patent trolls to thrive.
The paper cited one junior patent examiner who claimed that “rather than doing what I feel is ultimately right, I’m essentially fighting for my life.”
Is that hyperbole, or reality?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Bose says today is F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent battle
Music gear giant seeks some of that sweet, sweet Apple pie
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/25/bose_sues_beats_apple/
Audio thing biz Bose is suing Apple-owned Beats Electronics, alleging patent infringement.
Massachusetts-based Bose claimed in its court filing that headgear designed by Beats violated five of its patents, all relating to noise-canceling headphones.
While the infusion of cash could make Beats a lucrative target, a tie-up with Apple also gives the company sizable legal resources.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Journal of Economic Perspectives: Vol. 27 No. 1 (Winter 2013)
The Case against Patents
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.27.1.3
The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded—which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. Both theory and evidence suggest that while patents can have a partial equilibrium effect of improving incentives to invent, the general equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative. A properly designed patent system might serve to increase innovation at a certain time and place. Unfortunately, the political economy of government-operated patent systems indicates that such systems are susceptible to pressures that cause the ill effects of patents to grow over time.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patents that kill
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/08/innovation
Most inventors are not as generous as the “Newton of Electricity”: they want to turn their inventions into a profit. The patent system, which was developed independently in 15th century Venice and then in 17th century England, gave entrepreneurs a monopoly to sell their inventions for a number of years. Yet by the 1860s the patent system came under attack, including from The Economist. Patents, critics argued, stifled future creativity by allowing inventors to rest on their laurels. Recent economic research backs this up.
A one-size-fits-all patent system does not cater to the specifics of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. But tailoring patent law may encourage lobbying and corruption. A careful reform of the patent system is necessary: outright abolition of patents will not be enough to save cancer patients’ lives.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent reform in America
Trolls on the hill
Congress takes aim at patent abusers
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21591206-congress-takes-aim-patent-abusers-trolls-hill
IN SCANDINAVIAN folklore trolls were dumpy with grotesque faces and uncontrollable hair. These horrifying creatures have given their name to patent trolls, who buy up lots of vaguely worded patents and then use them to extract cash from unsuspecting victims—who pay them off rather than risk a pricey lawsuit. It is not hard to identify the obvious ones, but writing laws to catch them without endangering everyone else is. Having tried once with the America Invents Act of 2011, Congress is having another go. The Innovation Act looks set to become law by the end of the year, after attracting an unusual amount of support from both parties.
Many patent cases involve companies defending real innovations from copycats. But a large number are “pure shakedowns”,
Though the patent system touches all areas of business, the problem is concentrated in software. Such patents are often abstract, dealing in descriptions of what the software does rather than in lines of code.
two reasons. First, the troll problem faced by tech investors is not getting better. Second, the sending of threatening patent-infringement letters has become speculative.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Marvell: NO WAY should we have to pay jumbo $1.54bn patent judgment
Tells appeals court Carnegie Mellon Uni patent ruling was result of ‘series of legal errors’
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/13/cmu_vs_marvell_federal_appeal/
Fabless semiconductor firm Marvell has fired the opening volley in its appeal of the record-breaking $1.5bn judgment against it in its ongoing patent dispute with Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
“No patent infringement judgment for more than a billion dollars has ever received this Court’s imprimatur, and the $1.535 billion judgment here should not be the first,” the company’s lawyers said in a filing with the US Federal Circuit Appeals Court last week.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The NSA’s Patents, in One Searchable Database
http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/07/30/the_nsas_patents_in_one_searchable_database_0
What do a voice identifier, an automated translator, a “tamper-indicating” document tube, and a supersecure manhole cover have in common? They’re all technologies for which the secretive National Security Agency (NSA) has been granted patents by the U.S. government, giving the agency the exclusive rights to its inventions.
The four technologies represent a tiny fraction of the more than 270 sleuthy devices, methods, and designs for which the nation’s biggest intelligence agency has been granted a patent since 1979
The NSA’s cryptologists and computer scientists have been busy over the years inventing
Tomi Engdahl says:
NSA-patents-list
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HHtqLMlgpEYxLrE4gjb8C2JGSK9Q1uzZjqRcNhnL3pk/edit?pli=1#gid=0
Tomi Engdahl says:
After years of hype, patent troll Vringo demolished on appeal
Vringo stock drops 70%, as Google shuts down dreams of a billion-dollar payday.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/after-years-of-hype-patent-troll-vringo-demolished-on-appeal/
Today, the dream of getting rich by trading Vringo’s lawsuit-driven stock is dead. A three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has eviscerated Vringo’s patents, ruling 2-1 that they are obvious.
Vringo’s stock began to plummet after the ruling was released.
“We always believed strongly in our case, and we are pleased with this decision,” Google Director of IP Litigation Catherine Lacavera said via e-mail.
Vringo also sued Microsoft over its Bing search engine in January 2013. Microsoft quickly settled the suit
Vringo once had a small “video ringtone” business, but today its value is in its patents. It purchased foundational patents from Lycos, an early search engine, and put them in a holding company it calls I/P Engine (which is the named plaintiff in this lawsuit).
Tomi Engdahl says:
How Patent Trolls Destroy Innovation
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/08/20/0158225/how-patent-trolls-destroy-innovation
Everyone agrees that there’s been an explosion of patent litigation in recent years, and that lawsuits from non-practicing entities (NPEs) — known to critics as patent trolls — are a major factor. But there’s a big debate about whether trolls are creating a drag on innovation — and if so, how big the problem is.
the researchers find that firms that are forced to pay NPEs (either because they lost a lawsuit or settled out of court) dramatically reduce R&D spending: losing firms spent $211 million less on R&D, on average, than firms that won a lawsuit against a troll
“Our evidence suggests that it really is the NPE litigation event that causes this decrease in innovation.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
New study shows exactly how patent trolls destroy innovation
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/6036975/new-study-shows-exactly-how-patent-trolls-innovation
A new study by researchers at Harvard and the University of Texas provides some insight on this question. Drawing from data on litigation, R&D spending, and patent citations, the researchers find that firms that are forced to pay NPEs (either because they lost a lawsuit or settled out of court) dramatically reduce R&D spending: losing firms spent $211 million less on R&D, on average, than firms that won a lawsuit against a troll.
“After losing to NPEs, firms significantly reduce R&D spending — both projects inside the firm and acquiring innovative R&D outside the firm,” the authors write. “Our evidence suggests that it really is the NPE litigation event that causes this decrease in innovation.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google Wins $1.3 Million From Patent Troll
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/08/28/1326225/google-wins-13-million-from-patent-troll
Tomi Engdahl says:
It’s made-for-TV patent war, as AT&T sues Cox
AT&T wants cash for modems and DVRs that Cox bought from other companies.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/its-made-for-tv-patent-war-as-att-sues-cox/
The majority of patent lawsuits today are brought by “patent trolls” that do nothing but sue—but suits between actual competitors do still happen.
Case in point: AT&T has sued Cox Communications, saying that Cox has infringed seven AT&T patents covering everything from DVRs to methods for hiding “packet loss or frame erasure” over a network.
Sued over other companies’ hardware
AT&T claims that Cox DVRs and set-top boxes, including the Cisco-made Explorer 8000 and 8300 lines, infringe two AT&T patents: No. 5,809,492, which covers the DVR’s ability to “create, organize, identify, and resolve potentially conflicting program recording requests,” as well as No. 6,118,976, which “allow[s] a single device to select between and tune both analog and digital content streams.”
Cox’s digital telephone system is said to infringe AT&T’s patent No. 6,487,200. AT&T patents numbered 6,952,668, 7,233,897, and 7,908,140 also get lobbed at Cox’s “packet telephone system network components,” including all of Cox’s “eMTAs [cable modems that can interface with home phones] and other network components implementing… packet loss concealment or an equivalent, including at least [modems such as] the Motorola 5220 and Arris TM502G, TM202A, and TM402A models.”
The “packet loss” patents are related to an AT&T licensing program that has published rates, ranging from six cents to 20 cents per device for large-scale providers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Intellectual Ventures Sheds At Least Part of Its “Patent Troll” Reputation
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/09/04/1852211/intellectual-ventures-sheds-at-least-part-of-its-patent-troll-reputation
Intellectual Ventures, the world’s most infamous patent troll, has changed its tune — maybe. According to a story in Businessweek, the company has started turning a number of its ideas into products, ranging from hydration sensors to waterless washing machines and self-healing concrete.
Comment:
Is that punishing patent trolls causes innovation.
Tomi Engdahl says:
NVIDIA Launches Patent Suits Focused on Samsung Galaxy Phones, Tablets – See more at: http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/04/nvidia-launches-patent-suits/#sthash.1s2Pyw2l.dpuf
“Without licensing NVIDIA’s patented GPU technology, Samsung and Qualcomm have chosen to deploy our IP without proper compensation to us. This is inconsistent with our strategy to earn an appropriate return on our investment.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
NVIDIA Sues Qualcomm and Samsung Seeking To Ban Import of Samsung Phones
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/09/04/2254245/nvidia-sues-qualcomm-and-samsung-seeking-to-ban-import-of-samsung-phones
NVIDIA has filed complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm at the ITC and in the U.S. District court in Delaware. The suit alleges that the companies are both infringing NVIDIA GPU patents
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nvidia Sues Samsung, Qualcomm
7 patents asserted against mobile devices
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1323780&
Patents in the case include:
No. 6,198,488 Transform, Lighting and Rasterization System Embodied on a Single Semiconductor Platform
No. 6,992,667 Single Semiconductor Graphics Platform System and Method with Skinning, Swizzling and Masking Capabilities
No. 7,209,140 System, Method and Article of Manufacture for a Programmable Vertex Processing Model with Instruction Set
No. 6,690,372 System, Method and Article of Manufacturer for Shadow Mapping
No. 7,038,685 Programmable Graphics Processor for Multithreaded Execution of Programs
No. 7,015,913 Method and Apparatus for Multithreaded Processing of Data in a Programmable Graphics Processor
No. 6,697,063 Rendering Pipeline
Nvidia claims it has 7,000 granted or pending patents. The seven chosen represent “patents we have high confidence read on their products,”
Samsung products included in the suits are the Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy S4 mobile phones, Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro, and Galaxy Tab 2 tablets. Most of the devices use Qualcomm mobile processors, including the Snapdragon S4, 400, 600, 800, 801, and 805. Others are powered by Samsung Exynos mobile chips, which use ARM’s Mali and Imagination Technologies’ PowerVR GPU cores. ARM and Imagination were not named in the suits.
Nvidia did not specify in the suits the amount of damages it is seeking.
Tomi Engdahl says:
US Patent Office Seeking Consultant That Can Stamp-out Fraud By Patent Examiners
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/09/13/2146240/us-patent-office-seeking-consultant-that-can-stamp-out-fraud-by-patent-examiners
USPTO issued a statement that it is “committed to taking any measures necessary” to stop employees who review patents from lying about their hours and getting overtime pay and bonuses for work they didn’t do.
“If ‘thousands’ of USPTO employees were not doing their work, it would be impossible for this agency to be producing the best performance in recent memory and, perhaps, in its entire 224 year history.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Jury finds CBS infringes podcasting patent, awards $1.3 million
“Patent troll” lost its damages case, but it can move on to trials against NBC, Fox.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/jury-finds-cbs-infringes-podcasting-patent-awards-1-3-million/
A jury in Marshall, Texas, found the infamous “podcasting patent” was infringed by CBS’s website today and said that the TV network should pay $1.3 million to patent holder Personal Audio LLC.
Personal Audio is a holding company, cobbled together from the patents that were left after a failed startup that Jim Logan founded in 1996. The company became one of the poster children for problematic patents when it claimed that its patent number 8,112,504 was infringed by podcasters, including comedian Adam Carolla. Instead of settling quickly, though, Carolla fought back hard before settling last month.
Then Personal Audio said that podcasters were actually too poor to bother suing, so it kept up its case against three big TV networks: CBS, NBC, and Fox. The company made the argument that the “podcasting” patent actually covered “episodic content” transmitted over the Internet, including video content. The patent refers to a “compilation file,” which Personal Audio lawyers say correlates to the HTML webpage that CBS hosts its content at.
Critics of Personal Audio, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Daniel Nazer, say that’s nothing more than an electronic table of contents.
Now that its patent has been validated against CBS, Personal Audio will be allowed to move forward with trials against NBC and Fox. However, it’s still facing a crowd-funded challenge at the patent office brought by EFF, and that effort is scheduled to be heard later this year.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Troll hunter Rackspace turns Rotatable’s bizarro patent to stone
News of the Weird: Screen-rotating technology declared unpatentable
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/23/rackspace_rotatable_patent_win/
Cloud hosting firm Rackspace has claimed victory over another patent troll, this time not merely by successfully challenging a patent suit, but by actually having the patent in question invalidated.
“Rotatable Technologies is now an ex-patent troll,” Rackspace VP of intellectual property Van Lindberg wrote in a blog post on Monday.
“I say ‘ex-troll’ because its patent, US Pat. No. 6,326,978, has been declared unpatentable by the US Patent and Trademark Office in response to a challenge … filed by Rackspace.”
Rotatable claimed to have patented technology that ensures that onscreen graphics stay right-side-up when you rotate the physical display – basically, the thing that every mobile phone does when you turn it on its side. Rackspace makes mobile phone apps for managing its cloud that use the feature, so in Rotatable’s eyes that made it fair game.
“It’s Rackspace policy to not pay off patent trolls, even if it costs us more to fight,” Lindberg said.
“Eventually Rotatable offered to just walk away – but we refused again. Just as we promised last year, we challenged the patent and the USPTO invalidated it.”
Rackspace wasn’t the only company Rotatable had sued, either. Similar suits had been filed against Apple, Electronic Arts, Netflix, Whole Foods, and many others – and now none will have to pay, unless they have already settled.
Tomi Engdahl says:
EVIL patent TROLLS poised to attack OpenStack, says Linux protection squad
Open-source cloud’s own openness a problem
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/02/oin_openstack_warning/
A group established to shield Linux from patent trolls has warned OpenStack will be the next big target for intellectual property hoarders.
The Open Invention Network (OIN) reckons the open-source cloud is ripe for the plucking by trolls, who would easily be able to box off and claim core technologies as their own.
That would see developers and customers using OpenStack forced to hand over fistfuls of cash in royalties – following either cases or, more likely, closed-door deals that avoid the expense of court.
Keith Bergelt, OIN chief executive, told The Reg OpenStack lacks an IP rights protection policy beyond its basic Apache licences to protect itself.
“It creates a potential situation for mischief and for people to start inventing ahead of where core technology is being invented,” he said.
“I have more than a little concern this could be a flash point or a battleground.”
“There’s no provision on joint ventures and joint collaboration on a project that would protect IP.”
He reckoned this is creating a potential minefield, as trolls could file patents ahead of the game.
OIN was founded in 2005 by IBM, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony at a time when heightened anxiety over patent litigation was beginning to threaten Linux.
OIN is a holder of patents donated by members, which are then available for use by other OIN members.
Tomi Engdahl says:
HEVC patent prices are out. Look who’s NOT at the codec party: Microsoft and Google
Will they want to fork out to Apple ‘n’ pals?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/03/hevc_patent_terms_thrashed_out_but_look_whos_not_at_the_codec_party_microsoft_and_google/
Analysis The MPEG Licensing Authority (MPEG LA) has released pricing for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) that is almost certainly low enough to claim the market overnight.
HEVC is the successor to the tech used to encode video stored on Blu-ray Discs and streamed in high-definition digital TV transmissions the world over. The previous standard was called H.264 – aka MPEG 4, aka Advanced Video Coding (AVC) – and the current one is now H.265.
In the past, particularly when H.264 pricing was first mooted, there was enough complaint that some factions wanted to shift to alternative technologies and in the end the royalties were repriced.
The MPEG LA has selected which patents it believes are essential to an implementation of HEVC from just 23 organisations, and will collectively license all of these patents in a single pool of patents. Interestingly there are some major contributors to prior codec patent pools missing from the list and we suspect many of these – such as Technicolor, Microsoft and Sony – may be added later one way or another.
The list includes Apple, but neither Microsoft nor Google.
But the critical thing is the price, not which companies get the money. The first 100,000 units a year are free of royalty. After that it is a simple 20 US cents per unit, which is the same basic payment unit that was eventually settled on for H.264.
However there are two big differences. There is no further volume discount, whereas H.264 dropped from $0.20 per unit to $0.10 after 5 million units a year, and the maximum payable is far higher at $25m, rather than $6.5m. These values will be increased by no more than 20 per cent once every five years.
These things are never quite predictable and there may be some loud cries of complaint and Google may well take umbrage and once again attempt to sideline HEVC in favour of its own codecs, while others may complain about pricing or refuse to pay
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft Says Samsung Owes It $6.9 Million in Contract Dispute
http://recode.net/2014/10/03/microsoft-says-samsung-owes-it-6-9-million-in-contract-dispute/
Microsoft’s lawsuit against Samsung was unsealed on Friday, revealing that the software maker believes it is owed $6.9 million in unpaid interest from last year.
Microsoft sued in August, asking a federal court to rule that its Nokia purchase didn’t breach the company’s contract with Samsung. That contract calls for the Korean electronics giant to pay Redmond a royalty for each Android phone and tablet it makes.
Microsoft notes in the suit that Samsung paid it $1 billion last year under the patent agreement.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Open Invention Network Grows Despite Patent Troll Death Knell
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/10/08/2311229/open-invention-network-grows-despite-patent-troll-death-knell
Membership in the Open Invention Network, a software community set up to protect Linux against patent aggressors, has grown dramatically in the past year just as the tide seems to be turning on patent trolls.
“The big corporations show up with their giant patent portfolios, threatening legal doom if royalties aren’t paid. Attaching royalties to product or service delivery is a serious issue for companies, reducing margins long-term — especially in business models where the monetization is separated from the product.”
“But OIN neutralizes that strategy for those building with open source”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google asks the courts to sort out Java/Android patent case
Web firm seeks a ruling that will ‘help the technology industry’
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2374682/google-asks-the-courts-to-sort-out-java-android-patent-case
GOOGLE HAS ASKED A US COURT to wade back into its murky patent tango with Oracle and finally settle the whole Java and Android business in a way that suits the technology industry.
As it stands Google is the loser in the case, despite once looking like the winner. The legal push and pull has gone on since 2010 and has seen Oracle complaining about a shot of Java in the Android cocktail.
“We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection,” Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kathleen O’Malley wrote.
“Early computer companies could have blocked vast amounts of technological development by claiming 95-year copyright monopolies over the basic building blocks of computer design and programming,” Google is reported as saying.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The patent office is rejecting a lot more software patents
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/11/6958701/the-patent-office-is-rejecting-a-lot-more-business-method-patents
A June Supreme Court decision on the legality of software patents has been sending shockwaves through the legal system. The case, called Alice v. CLS Bank, has led to a bunch of lower court decisions invalidating software patents. It may also have been responsible for September’s sharp decline in patent lawsuits.
The decision appears to be having another effect that could be even more important in the long run: it’s causing the patent office to reject a lot more patents on “business methods,” a category of software patent that is notorious for its high litigation rate. While that might be bad news for the people seeking these types of patents, it means that there could be a lot fewer patent troll lawsuits over the next two decades.
How business method patents can discourage innovation
Gaudry worries that this will be bad for the US economy. “Business needs to know that their success earned through investment in solving vexing problems cannot be stolen,” she writes. “Without incentive, say goodbye to the quick pace of innovation we enjoy.”
But the evidence suggests that business method patents do more to hinder innovation than to promote it. Business method patents are 12 times more likely to lead to lawsuits than other types of patents. The “inventions” are often broad concepts like one-click shopping that are easy to infringe by accident. This makes them popular with patent trolls that prey on accidental infringers.
Research suggests that the threat of frivolous litigation does more to discourage innovation than the prospect of gaining patents does to encourage it. So a decline in business method patents could make the US legal system more, not less, hospitable to innovation.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ask Slashdot: Handling Patented IP In a Job Interview?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/10/15/2031259/ask-slashdot-handling-patented-ip-in-a-job-interview
Recently, I’ve started patenting some inventions that are applicable to my industry. One hope is that the patents look good to the prospective employer on a resume, but I don’t want them to take the existing IP for granted as part of the deal. I’m worried I have the wrong attitude, however. My question is, how should I treat licensing of the patent as a topic with respect to the topic of my employment?
Comment:
Patented IP belongs to the patent holder. Employment is a different issue altogether. Under normal circumstances, they are legally completely separate issues… so why would you want to mess that up?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google and LG will license each other’s patents for the next decade
http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/04/google-and-lg-cross-licensing-deal/
Samsung isn’t the only Android device maker getting cozy with Google’s patents, apparently. LG has just entered into a cross-licensing deal with Google that will let the two companies use each other’s patents (including new ones) for the next 10 years.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Qualcomm: Chinese patent licensees still aren’t playing fair
Chipmaker lowers guidance for 2015 as China thumbs nose
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/06/qualcomm_2014_q4_fy_earnings/
Qualcomm finished its 2014 fiscal year showing strong profit growth, but it cautioned investors that its ongoing disputes with Chinese customers and regulators could affect its results in the coming year.
The mobile chipmaker’s revenues for the fourth quarter were $6.69bn, up 3 per cent from the year-ago period. Unfortunately, however, that sum fell short of analysts’ expectations by almost 5 per cent, leaving investors none too pleased.
The company’s earnings, on the other hand, were right in line with the Wall Street moneymen’s prognostications, at $1.31 per diluted share.
As in the previous quarter, the chipmaker said that it believes certain of its Chinese patent licensees are underreporting the number of devices they shipped incorporating Qualcomm’s tech. Qualcomm thinks its licensees shipped around 1.3 billion devices in the quarter, but it only expects its customers to report sales of between 1.04 billion and 1.13 billion.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Samsung Files Counter-Suit & Patent Infringement Claims Against NVIDIA & Velocity Micro
by Ryan Smith on November 11, 2014 7:45 PM EST
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8715/samsung-nvidia-counter-suit
Back in September NVIDIA filed patent infringement complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm. The crux of the issue being that NVIDIA believes that GPUs from Qualcomm, ARM, and Imagination all violate several of NVIDIA’s patents. Ultimately after failing to come to a licensing agreement with Samsung, NVIDIA took the matter to the courts.
Complicating the matter is that in the case of infringement there is uncertainly and disagreement over who would be responsible – the chip designer or the hardware vendor – which led to NVIDIA taking the especially risky step of filing the suit against both Samsung and one of their GPU suppliers, Qualcomm.
This is a case that will take years to resolve, but in the meantime given the high profile nature of the case and the powerful parties involved, there was a high probability that counter-suits would be filed in response to NVIDIA’s initial complaints. This came to pass last week, with Samsung filing a suit in US federal court accusing NVIDIA and system builder Velocity Micro of infringing on multiple Samsung patents and false advertising regarding the SHIELD Tablet (to the detriment of Samsung).
Overall Samsung’s patent claims involve 8 patents, with NVIDIA accused of violating 6 and Velocity Micro accused of violating all 8.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of Patent WAR! Samsung strikes back at Nvidia
Armies of lawyers on the march
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/12/patent_wars_samsung_strikes_back_at_nvidia/
Samsung Electronics has counter-sued graphics processing units (GPU) manufacturer Nvidia for alleged infringement of its chip-related patents.
Nvidia filed a patent lawsuit against Sammy and semiconductor and wireless tech giant Qualcomm in September, alleging the companies used its patented GPU technology without proper compensation.
In a statement, Nvidia said it “fully expected” to be sued in response to the original lawsuit.
Samsung Electronics said in an emailed statement to Reuters: “We are pursuing necessary legal measures to defend our intellectual property rights and to ensure our continued growth in the IT industry.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ethernet patents claim smacked down by US judge
World+Dog’s blue cables and springy plastic toggles safe from troll, for now
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/13/ethernet_patents_smacked_down/
Ethernet Innovations’ sue-the-world strategy is beginning to unravel, with a California judge invalidating two of its patents and ruling that another two, on which it had based its lawsuits, hadn’t been infringed.
Companies who had decided to settle might be wishing they’d resisted, with Acer, Dell, HP and a bunch of other vendors eyeing off a bulk buy of some vintage French bubbles.
Ethernet Innovations inherited the patents from 3Com and claimed the defendants’ silicon infringed four.
Other defendants included Acer, Apple, Asus, Austek, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, Sony, Nvidia, Netgear and AT&T.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple Told to Pay $23.6 Million Over Pager Technology
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/apple-told-to-pay-23-6-million-over-pager-technology.html
Apple Inc. (AAPL) was told to pay a Texas company $23.6 million after a jury found its iPhone and other devices used SkyTel pager technology from the 1990s without permission.
This is the second trial in as many months in which Cupertino, California-based Apple was accused of using pager technology without paying for it. It won the first case, involving a different company, last month in California.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Samsung Files Complaint to Block Nvidia Chips From U.S.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/samsung-files-complaint-to-block-nvidia-chips-from-u-s-1-.html
Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) is seeking to block computer-graphics chips made by Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) from the U.S. market, escalating a battle begun after licensing talks failed.
Samsung filed a complaint yesterday against Nvidia with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, according to a notice on the agency’s website
The legal battle began in September when Nvidia filed its own ITC complaint against Qualcomm Inc. and Samsung over patented ways to improve graphics. It’s asking the agency to block imports of the latest Galaxy phones and tablets that use Qualcomm’s Snapdragon graphics processing units or Samsung’s Exynos processors.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent Power 2014
This year’s roundup of the companies and organizations with the strongest U.S. patent portfolios
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/patent-power-2014
Tomi Engdahl says:
Xiaomi confirms sales have been suspended in India
http://www.cnet.com/news/xiaomis-hugo-barra-confirms-sales-have-been-suspended-in-india/
The Chinese smartphone maker’s global vice president says in a Facebook post that is has been “forced to suspend sales in India until further notice.”
Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi has confirmed that it will be suspending sales of its handsets in India. The company had been served with an injunction by the Delhi High Court for infringing on Swedish telecommunications firm Ericsson’s patents.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google and Verizon cross-license patents to ‘reduce the risk’ of future litigation
http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/16/google-and-verizon-cross-license-patents-to-reduce-the-risk-of-future-litigation/
Google and Verizon today announced a long-term patent cross-license agreement. The duo said the deal covers “a broad range of products and technologies” but details were scarce beyond that.
Amusingly, the companies said the agreement will merely “reduce the risk of future patent litigation.” That leaves quite a large loophole open, we’d say.
“This cross license allows both companies to focus on delivering great products and services to consumers around the world,” Kirk Dailey, Head of Patent Transactions at Google, said in a statement. “We’re pleased to enter into this agreement with an industry leader like Verizon, and we welcome discussions with any company interested in a similar arrangement.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google, Verizon form global patent license agreement
http://www.cablinginstall.com/articles/2014/12/google-verizon-patent-license.html
Verizon Communications (NYSE, NASDAQ: VZ) and Google announced that the companies have entered into a long-term patent cross-license agreement covering a broad range of products and technologies.
According to a press statement, the agreement allows each company to reduce the risk of future patent litigation.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Toyota to Tesla: we can play the free patent game as well
Thousands of hydrogen fuel cell patents to go royalty-free
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/07/toyota_to_tesla_we_can_play_the_free_patent_game_as_well/
CES 2015 Toyota has taken a gauntlet and tossed it in the general direction of Elon Musk, telling the CES audience it will loose a hoard of patents relating to hydrogen fuel-cell cars on the world.
The 5,650 patents to be made royalty-free between now and 2020 cover “approximately 1,970 patents related to fuel cell stacks, 290 associated with high-pressure hydrogen tanks, 3,350 related to fuel cell system software control and 70 patents related to hydrogen production and supply”, the company says.
Like Tesla’s release of electric vehicle patents, the Toyota move is a strategy to drive adoption of hydrogen fuel cell technology in the car market worldwide.
Like Tesla, Toyota is hoping that being more generous with its IP will help create scale up the market for its fuel cell cars, while keeping it at the centre of the ecosystem.
Companies will be able to negotiate use of Toyota’s patents on an individual basis
Tomi Engdahl says:
Don Clark / Wall Street Journal:
IBM Wins Most Patents — Again — but Google and Apple Climb in Rankings
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/12/ibm-wins-most-patents-again-but-google-apple-climb-in-rankings/
There was little change among the largest recipients of U.S. patents in 2014. But two big Silicon Valley names – Google GOOGL -0.74% and Apple – continued climbing the charts.
The two technology giants remained well behind IBM IBM -1.68%, which topped the annual ranking by IFI Claims Patents Services for the 22nd consecutive year. In fact, the top five remained the same as in 2013, with Samsung Electronics 005930.SE +1.75%, Canon 7751.TO +1.00%, Sony 6758.TO -3.04% and Microsoft MSFT -1.27% following IBM, in that order. IFI Claims tracks “utility” patents that cover technology inventions rather than aesthetic designs.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patents Strategy Shift Predicted
Quality not quantity to be focus, says expert
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325272&
Patent strategies will shift from a focus on quantity to quality over the next few years, according to one expert. At least one analyst expressed skepticism, predicting the big-numbers game in intellectual property will continue for the foreseeable future.
Today companies file for patents by the basket, gearing up for battles with competitors doing the same. But a new set of realities will change the dynamic to a “flight to quality,” in which a few good patents are more important, said an intellectual property expert who asked not to be named.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Peter Burrows / Bloomberg:
GoPro stock drops over 12% after Apple is awarded patent for remote-control camera system
GoPro Plunges After Apple Gains Remote Camera Patent
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-13/gopro-plunges-after-apple-gains-remote-camera-patent.html
Investors are concerned that the patent will let Apple, the world’s largest company by market valuation, make products that are similar to what GoPro offers
Apple receives thousands of patents each year, most of which never lead to products, Anderson said. He said it’s more likely that Apple would use the remote capability included in the patent to let customers control the zoom and other photo and video settings on their iPhone or iPad cameras from another Apple device.
“GoPro has done well, but we’re talking about four million units and $1 billion in revenue in the past year,” he said. “Apple doesn’t do things with single-digit millions of units in mind.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple sues Ericsson over LTE wireless telecom patents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/14/us-apple-patent-ericsson-idUSKBN0KN0B820150114
(Reuters) – Apple Inc (AAPL.O) sued Ericsson (ERICb.ST) alleging that the Swedish company’s LTE wireless technology patents are not essential to industry cellular standards and that it is demanding excessive royalties for these patents.
The iPhone maker said it has not infringed on the patents and does not owe royalties for them.
If Ericsson’s patents are deemed essential and the court rules Apple has infringed on them, Apple said it wants the court to assign a reasonable royalty rate.