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 says:
Google’s Growing Patent Stockpile
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521946/googles-growing-patent-stockpile/
The search giant says patents are rubbish. Yet it’s accumulating more of them than ever.
Over the last few years, Google executives have had plenty to say about patents. According to Google, patents, particularly software patents, are mostly bogus, largely low-quality, and used in court by companies that can’t innovate to hurt consumers and stifle true innovators.
But data from the U.S. Patent & Trademark office shows that Google has been working very, very hard to win more patents on its own ideas. It has accelerated its activity to such a degree that Google inventors—among them founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—are now winning 10 patents every day the patent office is open, covering everything from automated cars to balloon-based data networks. For comparison, consider that in all of 2003, Google was awarded four patents.
The recent deluge of patent documents offers fascinating insights into Google’s latest ideas
Tomi Engdahl says:
EC trade secrets plans: Infringing kit may be DESTROYED by order
Draft laws: Reverse-engineering still broadly OK, though
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/02/eu_plans_to_protect_trade_secrets_unveiled/
Courts could order companies that infringe rivals’ trade secrets to destroy goods developed using that know-how and pay damages under new laws proposed by the European Commission.
The Commission has published a draft Directive on trade secrets in a bid to harmonise the legal framework around the unlawful acquisition, disclosure and use of trade secrets across the EU.
“The existing national rules offer an uneven level of protection across the EU of trade secrets against misappropriation, which jeopardises the smooth functioning of the Internal Market for information and know-how.”
To qualify for protection under the regime, information would have to be secret, have commercial value because of its secrecy and been the subject of “reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret”.
Information would be said to be “secret” if “it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question”.
Under the framework, businesses would not be said to have unlawfully acquired a rivals’ trade secrets if it obtains that information through “independent discovery or creation” or through “observation, study, disassembly or test of a product or object that has been made available to the public” or that is lawfully in its possession. In addition, other “honest commercial practices” that result in businesses uncovering trade secrets of rivals will be legitimate.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Obama administration backs patent troll bill, House vote set for this week
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/3/5172084/white-house-supports-innovation-act-house-patent-troll-reform
The White House has been trying to crack down on patent trolls, and today it’s come out in support of a House bill that would begin to do just that. The bill, Representative Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) Innovation Act, has passed through the House Judiciary Committee and will be put up to a vote by the entire House of Representatives either this Wednesday or Thursday. Having seen strong, bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, the Innovation Act appears to have a shot at passing later this week.
The Innovation Act aims to make it easier for businesses to fight back against patent trolls, which generally don’t produce any products of their own and instead use patents to sue other companies. Under the act, the relevant patents, products, and demands would all have to be made more clear when a business initiates legal action.
It would also make fighting patent lawsuits less expensive and allow defendants that win a case to potentially recover their court costs.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent Troll Bill Clears House With Huge Majority
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/13/12/05/2250226/patent-troll-bill-clears-house-with-huge-majority
“The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Innovation Act, dealing trolls a severe blow despite opposition from universities looking to protect patents, InfoWorld’s Simon Phipps reports.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
It’s Game Time: Supreme Court to Address Abstract Software Patents
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/its-game-time-supreme-court-address-software-patents
Patent reform is moving along nicely on Capitol Hill, but today we got some more really big news. The Supreme Court has agreed to take on the question of patentable subject matter. Specifically, it’s time to talk about software patents.
A brief refresher: under the law, one cannot patent laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Recently, the Supreme Court clarified this standard in two cases
Despite clear guidance from the Court, when the Federal Circuit addressed the question as it relates to abstract ideas (read, software), it basically punted, failing to produce any meaningful rule of law for lower courts to follow.
Today, the Supreme Court stepped in.
We’re glad that patent reform has momentum and that policymakers are targeting patent trolls. But the root of that problem, which has largely been missing from the public debate, is patent quality, specifically of software-related inventions.
Tomi says:
German Patent Ruling Threatens Microsoft’s Windows Phone Earnings From Android
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/06/german-patent-ruling-threatens-microsofts-windows-phone-earnings-from-android/
In yet another round of the patent fights going on over smart phones we find that Microsoft has just been dealt a blow over the revenues it gains from Android hand sets. Yes, read that again, Microsoft makes money out of many to most of the Android handsets out there. It’s a substantial chunk of revenue too. On the grapevine we’ve been told that HTC pays $5 a handset, Samsung perhaps as much as $10.
We don’t know the total number as Microsoft doesn’t break it out in their accounts but books it in the same division as the Windows Phone licence revenues.
The royalties are actually on the FAT patent. And this is where things might be going wrong for Microsoft:
Today the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court of Germany, BPatG) held a full-day nullity (invalidation) trial at the conclusion of which Judge Vivian Sredl, who presides over the Second Nullity Senate, announced the ruling that EP0618540 on a “common name space for long and short filenames” is invalid in its entirety (including Microsoft’s proposed amendments)
Tomi says:
Oracle apparently winning Android-Java appeal against Google — API declaring code copyrightable
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/12/oracle-apparently-winning-android-java.html
[BREAKING NEWS -- please check back soon for more detail in a follow-up post that will be based on the official recording of today's appellate hearing]
Tomi Engdahl says:
Supreme Court to preside over software patents case
Decision could help shift legal handling in code disputes
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/07/supreme_court_to_preside_over_software_patents_case/
he US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a patent case which some hope will have a profound effect on the software industry.
The top US court on Friday said that it would review a lower court ruling in the case of Alice vs CLS Bank. The decision, say advocates, could have implications throughout the software industry.
At issue in the case is the ability and extent to which software can be patented under US law. Software developer Alice Corporation claims to have patents regarding financial transaction tools which were challenged by CLS as not being eligible for protections under US patent regulations.
After a US District court issued a mixed verdict, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter in an upcoming session.
According to patent reform advocates, the case represents a hope that the Supreme Court will help to crack down on what have been called “abstract” software patents which cover vague areas and wide swaths of operations.
Tomi Engdahl says:
EU regulator warns Nokia not to become a patent troll
Will keep a close eye on it
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2317963/eu-regulator-warns-nokia-not-to-become-a-patent-troll
FINNISH PHONE MAKER Nokia has been warned by EU regulators not to “behave like a patent troll” following Microsoft’s acquisition of the company’s devices business.
Speaking at an event in Paris on Monday, Almunia said, “Since Nokia will retain its patent portfolio, some have claimed that the sale of the unit would give the company the incentive to extract higher returns from this portfolio.
“These claims fall outside the scope of our review. When we assess a merger, we look into the possible anti-competitive impact of the company resulting from it. We cannot consider what the seller will do. If Nokia were to take illegal advantage of its patents in the future, we will open an antitrust case – but I sincerely hope we will not have to.
“You can rest assured that we are watching this space very carefully. DG competition will hold patent trolls to the same standards as any other patent holder,” he added.
Tomi says:
German Patent Ruling Threatens Microsoft’s Windows Phone Earnings From Android
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/06/german-patent-ruling-threatens-microsofts-windows-phone-earnings-from-android/
In yet another round of the patent fights going on over smart phones we find that Microsoft has just been dealt a blow over the revenues it gains from Android hand sets. Yes, read that again, Microsoft MSFT +0.87% makes money out of many to most of the Android handsets out there. It’s a substantial chunk of revenue too. On the grapevine we’ve been told that HTC pays $5 a handset, Samsung perhaps as much as $10.
It is true that parts of this patent have been invalidated before and then reinstated. So we won’t know the final outcome of this until all appeals have been heard.
The second is that we don’t really have a German or UK or whatever patent system any more, we have a European Union one. So this German case doesn’t apply just to Germany, it applies right across the EU. Even if the US decision doesn’t go the same way, if Microsoft does lose the FAT patent in this one case then it will lose it right across 500 million rich world people. And while Microsoft is certainly large enough to survive such a loss it would still hurt.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple scores legal victory over Samsung in South Korea
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-samsung-apple-idUSBRE9BB02H20131212
(Reuters) – Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on Thursday lost its bid to ban sales of Apple Inc’s older iPhone and iPad in South Korea after a court dismissed a lawsuit claiming the U.S. firm had infringed on three of Samsung’s mobile patents.
The lawsuit was part of the tech giants’ global courtroom battle dating to 2011, when Apple first sued Samsung for copying the look and feel of its iconic iPhone and iPad.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Samsung Said to Near EU Antitrust Settlement on Patents
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-11/samsung-said-to-near-eu-antitrust-settlement-amid-apple-clash.html
Samsung Electronics Co. (005930)’s offer to settle a European Union antitrust investigation over key patents requires only minor changes to win approval from regulators, according to two people familiar with the case.
The EU will tell Samsung this month that rivals and other interested parties gave mostly positive feedback in a review of its pledge to stop seeking injunctions in Europe in disputes with competitors over patents required for products that comply with global technology standards, said the people, who asked not to be named because the process is confidential.
The EU is cracking down on possible patent abuses as Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Motorola Mobility (MMI) unit, Microsoft Corp., Apple and Samsung trade victories in divergent court rulings across the world on intellectual property. The EU’s antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia has said he’s targeting the “rules of the game” to prevent companies from unfairly leveraging their inventions to thwart rivals.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Former Google executive to run U.S. patent office
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/us-usa-patents-lee-idUSBRE9BA0TK20131211
(Reuters) – Former Google Inc executive Michelle Lee has been named deputy director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and will run the agency until a new director is named, the agency said on Wednesday.
Lee is a former deputy general counsel and head of patents and patent strategy at Google, the search engine giant.
Currently head of the U.S. patent office’s Silicon Valley outpost, Lee begins her new job on January 13.
Tomi Engdahl says:
JPMorgan’s “Bitcoin-Alternative” Patent Rejected
http://bitcoinsalot.com/?p=33
Earlier in the week, we detailed JPMorgan’s attempt to create their own “web cash” alternative to Bitcoin (and Sberbank’s talk of doing the same).
On August 5, 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPMorgan) filed an application for an electronic mobile payment system which has eerie similarities to the popular online currency Bitcoin. Unfortunately for JPMorgan, all of the claims, totaling 175 claims, as of October 18, 2013, for published US patent application 20130317984 (the ‘984 application) have been either cancelled or rejected.
However, Mr. Patel might well have rejected the claims because of the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b), meaning that if the invention has been on sale for over a year then the invention is no longer patentable. Under the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule, the application could be invalid because it closely mirrors Bitcoin with features such as making free and anonymous electronic payments and Bitcoin has been in circulation since 2009.
Tomi Engdahl says:
When asked, vast majority of businesses say IP is not important
http://topromotetheprogress.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/when-asked-vast-majority-of-businesses-say-ip-is-not-important/
Last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a widely cited report entitled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus.” This report played up the importance of IP, claiming “the entire U.S. economy relies on some form of IP,” and estimated that “IP-intensive industries” accounted for 40 million American jobs and 35% of the U.S. GDP in 2010.
While many pro-IP groups hailed the report as demonstrating the importance of IP to the American economy, the report was panned by critics who pointed out that the definition of “IP-intensive industries” was so broad as to be meaningless. Indeed, according to the report, the number one IP-intensive industry by employment in the United States was… grocery stores. Furthermore, although supporters of stricter IP regulation and enforcement continue to rely on the report to justify policies relating to copyrights and patents, the vast majority of the report’s purported economic benefits were attributed to trademarks.
But wait – surely I’m making all this up. If “IP-intensive” industries account for 40 million jobs and 35% of GDP, intellectual property must be very important to businesses. What’s this “vast majority,” then?
In 2010, 87.2% of businesses reported that trademarks were “not important” to them.
90.1% of businesses reported that copyrights were “not important” to them.
96.2% of businesses reported that patents were “not important” to them.
If you still think I’m making these numbers up (and I wouldn’t blame you if you did), head on over to the NSF’s page describing the survey, results, and methodology. Note that these results are consistent across the three years of the survey, and the survey itself is a representative sample across the country.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google Maps and Navigation under patent fire from Nokia: lawsuit revealed by Google itself
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/12/google-maps-and-navigation-under-patent.html
TechCrunch apparently quoted a first-rate (unnamed) source more than six months ago, which told the popular blog that “Nokia has held off on a suit against Nokia for Google Maps for several years just waiting for the right time to approach with an overall suit covering Android and Maps”. Nokia has recently begun to attack Google Maps and Google Navigation in Germany, a filing by Google with the ITC reveals.
Google will have to sort out patent licensing issues with Nokia at some point. That is also the opinion of an Administrative Law Judge at the ITC, who recently suggested that Google participate in Nokia-HTC settlement talks.
Tomi Engdahl says:
With Waze, Google Gets Access To Social Mapping Data — And Possible Patent Legal Heat From Nokia
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/14/with-waze-google-gets-access-to-social-mapping-data-and-a-possible-lawsuit-from-nokia/
The Google deal to buy Waze — reportedly for $1.1 billion — is a strong move for both companies to enhance their respective mapping services, and to help monetize them better. But it could also serve as the tipping point for Nokia to turn the screws on getting Google to take licenses for certain mapping patents that it owns, or else face legal consequences.
According to a source familiar with the situation, Nokia has been eyeing up taking legal action against the search, mobile (and mapping) giant for a while now, and the Waze deal could be the tipping point for that to finally happen.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple, Samsung CEOs agree to mediation in U.S. patent fight
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/09/us-apple-samsung-idUSBREA0802P20140109
Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics have agreed to attend a mediation session to be held on or before February 19, as they prepare to clash in court in March over smartphone patents.
The technology rivals are facing a March trial date in the United States over Apple’s claims that Samsung infringed its patents.
In the last two years, Apple and Samsung have gone to trial twice in San Jose, California federal court, and juries have awarded Apple a total of roughly $930 million.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Supreme Court to Consider Rules on Encouraging Patent Infringement
At Issue Are Companies That Encourage Customers to Infringe Patents
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303393804579312814046065806-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMDExNDAyWj
The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday that it would consider whether to make it easier to hold companies liable for encouraging others to commit patent infringement.
A splintered federal appeals court ruled in 2012 that Akamai could proceed with allegations that Limelight encouraged its customers to infringe an Akamai patent involving a method for helping website owners manage online traffic efficiently.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 6-5 decision, ruled Limelight would be liable if Akamai could prove that Limelight performed some actions outlined in the patent and then directed its customers to perform the remaining steps in the patent.
Limelight, which denied Akamai’s allegations, argued that a company shouldn’t be held liable for encouraging patent infringement unless some single party performs every step in the patent.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sniff, sniff, what’s that burning smell? Oh, it’s Google’s patent-filing office working flat out
Nearly 2,000 patents granted to the ad giant in 2013
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/14/google_hits_the_patent_bigtime_reports/
Google, perhaps as sick as we are of the ongoing patent wars, spent last year furiously filling its technology war chest – with new designs rubber-stamped by the US patent office, according to research published by The Financial Times.
The study, syndicated by The Australian Financial Review here, was created by patent tracker IFI. It claims Google was in 21st place in 2012 in terms of patents issued in the US, and didn’t even make the top 50 in 2011.
But then in 2013, the IFI says, Google banked 1,920 patents, enough to place it in the US top 10 when compared to the 2012 list
would still have to double its output to get close to top-of-the-table patent recipients IBM (6,478 in 2012) and Samsung (5,081).
Google’s patent rank shoots up as company stakes out wearable tech
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/13/googles-patent-rank-shoots-up-as-company-stakes-out-wearable-tech/
Google, after getting burned in the smartphone wars, is acquiring patents like ever before — even as the company continues its crusade to fix the country’s broken patent system.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Computer programs should communicate better with each other. Software interfaces too strong protection to prevent the current technological advances, it turns out the University of Turku Ulla-Maija Mylly study.
Changes should be done to the patent and copyright law.
Purpose of the legislation is to create exclusive rights, which are believed to contribute to the technological and cultural development.
But the situation is more complicated in the software industry. Driving the development of that new programs and their components can be incorporated in existing. If the legislation prevents developing new software connection to the old, it slows down the development.
Mylly proposes a more appropriate level of interoperability information should be available to all developers.
In addition, she proposes to study patent law change. It would enable the interoperability of the element the use of other computer software without the patent holder’s consent. One option is that after the change of interoperability element user would pay compensation to the patent holder.
Source: Tietoviikko
http://www.tietoviikko.fi/kaikki_uutiset/rajapintojen+pihtailusta+tuli+kehityksen+jarru/a959531
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tales from an expert witness: Prior art and patent trolls
Where ideas, inventions and opportunists collide
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/15/tales_from_an_expert_witness_prior_art_and_patent_trolls/
John Watkinson is an expert witness and on many occasions has had to deal with patent litigation. Here he describes the application of ideas in the art of invention both historically and currently from Galileo to patent trolls.
A patent is a form of contract between society and the inventor that benefits both. In return for making the details of his invention public, the inventor is given protection for a specific time period in which he can exploit his invention. After that period has elapsed, the rest of society can do with it as it wishes.
This being so, the inventor’s life should be a piece of cake. You invent something and patent it, and the world beats a path to your door in order to benefit from your invention. You become rich. And pigs can fly.
The real world is, unfortunately, a hostile place for an inventor. The mistake inventors make is to seek to cause change – and that goes down badly in a world that runs on dogma, conservatism and tradition
It is not possible for science, discovery or invention to take place in a society that already has the answers and enforces them with fear.
Although it grew from invention, today’s industry is no longer inventive. It is a highly conservative money making machine which has all the answers and enforces them with advertising and marketing. Inventions are a threat to business as usual, and represent a risk. The same can be said for organisations such as the armed forces, where orders are orders and nothing is to be questioned.
It should therefore be no surprise that the odds are stacked against the inventor. The evidence is all around.
Industry adopts several approaches to patents. One is to wait until the patent expires and then market product based on it. Another is to develop something that offers some of the benefits of the patent but which is sufficiently different in detail that it doesn’t infringe. Another approach, if the inventor has limited funding, is to simply steal the intellectual property on the basis that the inventor won’t be able to afford to litigate.
So it is the way the real world operates that results in intellectual property litigation.
Popular wisdom has it that Sony invented the Walkman, because the story is told in Sony co-founder Akio Morita’s autobiography. What is less well known is that Andreas Pavel, who actually invented it, had to wait until Morita died before he could safely say that Morita’s story was economical with the truth.
For every Pavel there are scores who were simply crushed and gave up.
Rigorous arguments
In my experience the majority of patent disputes don’t get as far as a court. The court is usually only involved where matters such as pride and loss of face predominate over logic. So the goal is usually to establish what the true position is.
Another one of my experiences is that on a number of occasions where manufacturers are accused of infringing a patent, the accusation comes from an organisation that buys the rights to patents en masse and then looks for a manufacturer who will pay royalties to avoid litigation. Of course, once those royalties are being paid, funding exists to allow more litigation and so on. When I was first involved in this sort of thing, it didn’t have a name. Now it’s called patent trolling and it is disturbingly widespread.
Trolling works by accusing multiple organisations of infringement.
Thus one of the jobs of an expert is to help with the assessment of the validity of patents held against his client.
Another one of the things that I have learned over the years is that once something becomes successful everyone and his dog claim to have invented it or some part of it.
I saw it with the Compact Disc and I saw it with digital television.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google and Apple Surge Ahead in Race for Patents
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/01/google-apple-patents/
Google, Apple, and other tech outfits continued their patent spree in 2013, surging past industrial giants like GM and General Electric in total number of patents awarded.
Here’s the full top 10:
International Business Machines Corp
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Canon K K
Sony Corp
Microsoft Corp
Panasonic Corp
Toshiba Corp
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd
QUALCOMM Inc
LG Electronics Inc KR
While patents aren’t necessarily a good indicator of company innovation, they are vitally important in the ongoing tussles between tech companies large and small — not mention the defense against patent trolls, outfits that exist solely to make money from intellectual property lawsuits.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Huawei settles with Rockstar Consortium, will pay for Android’s infringement of ex-Nortel patents
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/huawei-settles-with-rockstar-consortium.html
The Google-led group of Android device makers sued on Halloween 2013 over former Nortel patents fails to present a united front to the Rockstar Consortium, a patent holding firm jointly owned by Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony
The first one of the seven Android OEMs, China’s Huawei, has already accepted to pay up. On Tuesday (January 21), Huawei, the Rockstar Consortium and the latter’s MobileStar Technologies subsidiary filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice Rockstar’s claims against Huawei
Rockstar’s lawsuits are continuing against Google (over its search engine as well as Android)
This is already the second time over the last couple of months that Huawei has become the first defendant to settle litigation targeting multiple companies.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Bored with patent trolls? Small fry – prepare for the Design Trolls
Govt’s twiddles with design and patent law raise industry fears
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/23/uk_gov_design_twiddles/
Changes to UK patent and design law affecting thousands of British businesses have been criticised by industry and Labour’s front bench business team.
The Intellectual Property Bill contains changes to design and patent law proposed in the so-called Google Review, better known as “The Independent Review of IP and Growth” by Professor Ian Hargreaves. These intangible rights are vital to a range of UK industries, ranging from high value manufacturing to fashion.
In particular, functional designs protect the classic, clever “Better Mousetrap” innovations which might not be covered by a patent, but which are still essential to the UK’s high-value manufacturing sector. Industry says some changes make offshoring more likely
Although the bill puts in place the UK law necessary to implement the European Unified Patent Court, much of it is about design. Unlike copyright, protection for designs and inventions is not automatic, and requires formal registration. Many designers and inventors are solo operators or very small businesses.
Copying is rife, and the law is a muddle. For example: how many people know that there are two classes of design protection in the UK? One for “registered designs”, and one for “un-registered designs”
Each has a different scope of protection: you can sue in a criminal court for copying a Registered Design, but not an infringement of the unregistered Design Right.
“the UK unregistered right can protect functional designs, and where these are complex and highly technical, it could cause difficulties in criminal cases,”
Labour also highlighted another part of the bill which has alarmed engineering companies. Stuff is now often designed in the UK and manufactured overseas. But some of these countries don’t recognise the unregistered design right.
“Companies manufacturing in the UK for export to a country without the same level, extent, or duration of protection (i.e. most countries in the world) could easily find themselves in the position where the sale in the export territory or the possession of the product by the customer was not an infringement of any right of their Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or US competitors, but the manufacture in the UK is,” the IP Federation warned last year.
“The obvious way of avoiding the problem would be, if possible, to offshore the manufacture either to the customer country or to any other country where the manufacture could not be blocked,” they added.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Qualcomm gobbles Palm patents after rummaging around HP’s backroom
Chip biz snaps up 2,400 protected designs from PC titan
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/24/qualcomm_pulls_patents_from_the_carcass_of_palm/
Mobile chipset maker Qualcomm has bought 2,400 patents from HP, including Palm and iPaq technology.
The processor baker announced that it had secured a deal with Meg Whitman’s tech titan to land granted and pending patents covering stuff from Bitfone to Palm. Terms of the deal, including the price Qualcomm is set to shell out, were not disclosed.
Qualcomm has not said how it will put its new patent war chest to use, though the company noted that the deal will include patents on “fundamental mobile operating system techniques” that could boost its licensing coffers.
Palm’s flagship WebOS platform was eventually sold off to LG, where it has since been remade as a platform for the company’s smart TV line.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft wins patent for blade server chassis
OEMs will love this just like they loved Surface
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/24/microsoft_wins_patent_for_blade_server_chassis/
Sharp-eyed blogger Kevin Houston has spotted a Microsoft patent for a “Tray and Chassis Blade Server Architecture”.
The patent, awarded last December, offers a chassis design that assumes blades – storage, compute, network switch and hybrid blades all get a mention – will reside in trays and be inserted horizontally. The trays will provide and plug straight in to sockets for power and network connectivity.
Such an arrangement, the patent appears to argue, reduces cabling complexity and hassle.
The patent also mentions a “chassis unified connector” providing power and data, which would be interesting as Power over Ethernet has generally been imagined as a way to fuel rather less energy-hungry devices than servers. Another feature Microsoft talks up is the ability to house blades of different sizes in one chassis, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent-holding firm’s lawsuit against Googorola kicks off
Intellectual Ventures: ‘Won’t somebody please think about the inventors!’
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/24/iv_google_moto_trial_starts/
Patent-holding firm Intellectual Ventures kicked off its lawsuit against Googorola yesterday, in a case of tech giant versus the “we’re-not-a-patent-troll” IP licensing firm.
The company set up by former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold is suing Google’s Motorola division over three patents it holds which cover mobile phone and software technologies, including Google Play.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google and Samsung reach global patent license deal
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/26/google-and-samsung-reach-global-deal-on-patent-license/
A major new cross-licensing agreement between Google and Samsung involves thousands of patents, and could move the ongoing patent wars over mobile devices in a new direction.
“By working together on agreements like this, companies can reduce the potential for litigation and focus instead on innovation,” said Allen Lo, Google’s Deputy General Counsel for Patents in the statement.
The agreement comes more than two years after Samsung signed a patent cross-license deal with Microsoft that was described at the time as a blow to Google.
Lo’s comment about “innovation” may be seen as a rebuke to Apple, Microsoft and other companies that employ a controversial technique known as “privateering” in which they arm shell companies with old patents. The shell companies, which are largely immune from counter-suits because they have no assets, then set about demanding money from productive companies — the result has been a growing train-wreck of lawsuits drawing in a wide swath of industries.
“Privateering lets a company split its patent portfolio into smaller sub-portfolios “stacked” on each other, increasing the number of entities a firm must negotiate with and multiplying licensing costs. This behavior unfairly raises competitors’ costs, ultimately driving up prices for consumers,” said a Google spokesperson in response to an email question.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Samsung to Pay Hundreds of Millions of Dollars to Settle Patent Dispute With Ericsson
January 27, 2014, 12:00 AM PST
http://recode.net/2014/01/27/samsung-to-pay-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-to-settle-patent-dispute-with-ericsson/
In the second patent deal announced by Samsung in the last 24 hours, the Korean electronics giant and Ericsson announced they have settled a dispute with a cross-licensing deal that will see some big checks being written to the Swedish networking firm.
While full details weren’t disclosed, Ericsson said the settlement will boost its fourth-quarter sales by 4.2 billion Swedish Kronor ($652.3 million) and its net income by 3.3 billion kronor ($512.5 million). In addition to the initial payment, Samsung will also make ongoing payments to Ericsson, the companies said.
The deal will end all of the global patent disputes between the two firms
Tomi Engdahl says:
Qualcomm Buys Mobile Patents From HP
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1320792&
In a move aimed at strengthening its mobile patent portfolio, Qualcomm Inc. has acquired a massive amount of IP from Hewlett-Packard Co. that includes patents from Palm, iPaq, and Bitfone involving operating system technologies.
Terms of the deal were not disclosed. The San Diego-based chip maker said that the purchased portfolio consists of nearly 1,400 and 1,000 granted patents and pending patent applications from the US and other countries, respectively.
Qualcomm’s technology licensing (QTL) business is strong. It already has more than 250 royalty-bearing CDMA-based licensees; 175 are licenses for WCDMA-TD-SCDMA, and over 90 single-mode OFDM/OFDMA licensees. QTL accounted for approximately 30% of Qualcomm’s sales of $24.9 billion in fiscal 2013 ended October, but is the dominant contributor to its bottom line.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue
Holding company Vringo used old Lycos patents to wrest a win worth many millions.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/court-orders-google-to-pay-1-36-of-adwords-revenue-for-infringing-patents/
Vringo is a tiny company that purchased some patents from Lycos, an old search engine, in 2011 and then used those patents to sue Google. In December 2012, Vringo won $30 million in a jury trial, but that was far less than the hundreds of millions it was seeking.
Today, Vringo got the payout it was looking for: a 1.36 percent running royalty on US-based revenue from AdWords, Google’s flagship program.
Because some aspects of Google’s revenue are opaque, it’s impossible to know exactly what Vringo’s win would be worth—and the company is a long way from cashing a check. But if the royalty rate were to be upheld on appeal, Google would surely have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars.
Google doesn’t break out AdWords revenue clearly, but the company made $9.39 billion from “Google-owned sites” in the last quarter. The company will likely make more than $35 billion in 2013 in this area. The majority of that is surely AdWords, since estimates for YouTube range from $3.7 billion to $5.6 billion. Around 55 percent of the company’s overall revenue comes from the US.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Qualcomm Buys Mobile Patents From HP
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1320792&
In a move aimed at strengthening its mobile patent portfolio, Qualcomm Inc. has acquired a massive amount of IP from Hewlett-Packard Co. that includes patents from Palm, iPaq, and Bitfone involving operating system technologies.
Terms of the deal were not disclosed. The San Diego-based chip maker said that the purchased portfolio consists of nearly 1,400 and 1,000 granted patents and pending patent applications from the US and other countries, respectively.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is Google-Samsung Licensing a Big Event?
Deal is more like a “NAFTA treaty”
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1320796&
Samsung Electronics pulled off two big patent-licensing agreements over the last 48 hours: one with Google on a broad agreement to cross-license each other’s patents; another with Ericsson
Is the mobile industry suddenly seeing the wisdom of “patent peace”?
It’s likely. Or, more to the point, the mobile industry is maturing to the point where more cross-licensing agreements seem almost inevitable among key players in the smartphone market.
However, the Google-Samsung cross-licensing deal, struck Sunday, appears to raise more questions than answers.
Not knowing which patents will be covered by this exclusive cross-licensing agreement between Google and Samsung could concern other Android OEMs
Tomi Engdahl says:
Twitter avoids IP face-off with Big Blue, will buy 900 IBM patents
Joins mega-patent-having tech titan club, will cross-license too
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/03/twitter_ibm_patents/
Six-year-old Twitter has agreed to buy 900 patents from IP superstore IBM after Big Blue threatened to sue the microblogging firm last year.
“This acquisition of patents from IBM and licensing agreement provides us with greater intellectual property protection and gives us freedom of action to innovate on behalf of all those who use our service,” said Twitter’s legal director Ben Lee in the canned statement.
Tomi Engdahl says:
A real life Romulan-Klingon alliance: Google, Samsung sign global patent pact
Companies have each other’s back in the Great Patent Wars
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/27/google_samsung_ericsson_patent_deals/
Google and Samsung have strengthened their positions in the Great Patent Wars against Apple by signing a global cross-licensing deal with each other.
The Android buddies have agreed to license any and all current IP as well as any patents filed in the next 10 years with each other for undisclosed financial terms.
“This agreement with Google is highly significant for the technology industry,” Seungho said. “Samsung and Google are showing the rest of the industry that there is more to gain from cooperating than engaging in unnecessary patent disputes.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
HTC to redesign phones after losing Nokia patent suit
http://www.zdnet.com/htc-to-redesign-phones-after-losing-nokia-patent-suit-7000025923/
Summary: Some handsets will be modified to sidestep a German court ruling, in order to minimize disruption to customers while it appeals against the decision.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Samsung, Cisco Sign Cross-License Pact for Tech Patents
Companies Grant Each Other Access to Existing Patent Portfolios
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304680904579365220297306100-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwNTEwNDUyWj
The cross-license agreement with Cisco, the biggest maker of networking equipment, gives the two companies access to each other’s existing patent portfolios as well as those filed over the next 10 years, covering a broad range of products and technologies, the companies said in a joint statement Wednesday. Financial terms weren’t disclosed.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple faces $2 billion damages claim in Mannheim over wireless patents — trial on Tuesday (Feb. 11)
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/apple-faces-2-billion-damages-claim-in.html
On Tuesday (February 11, 2014), Apple will have to defend itself in a German patent trial against a damages claim amounting to 1.57 billion euros ($2.12 billion)
IPCom has been suing Nokia and HTC for several years (in Mannheim, where it has already won various rulings, and other venues).
complaints were brought by IPCom GmbH & Co. KG (a patent monetization entity
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple Joins Google in Pressing Court to Curb Patent Abuse
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/apple-joins-google-in-pressing-court-to-curb-patent-abuse.html
Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Google Inc. (GOOG), saying they’re tired of being slapped with frivolous patent suits that cost millions of dollars in legal fees, are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let them hit back.
The technology companies are leading a group of firms urging the court to make it easier to collect attorneys’ fees from patent-holders who lose infringement suits.
Each has been sued more than 190 times in the past five years by “patent-assertion entities,”
More than 100,000 companies were threatened in 2012 alone with infringement suits by businesses whose sole mission is to extract royalty revenue, according to a White House report. Those entities, dubbed “patent trolls” by critics, filed 19 percent of all patent lawsuits from 2007 to 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Wi-Fi “patent troll” will only get 3.2 cents per router from Cisco
After a $13M legal bill, users of Cisco routers get protection.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/cisco-strikes-deal-to-pay-wi-fi-patent-troll-3-2-cents-per-router/
Innovatio bought old Broadcom patents and then sent out more than 13,000 letters asking for individual chain hotels and coffee-shops to pay
The big companies that make router equipment didn’t stand still as Innovatio’s campaign continued. Cisco, Netgear, and Motorola Solutions intervened in the litigation.
Millions of users of Cisco routers won’t need to worry about a threat letter from Innovatio now, but there was a lot of damage done along the way.
“We spent $13 million on this litigation, not including the $2.7 million settlement,”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Juniper, Palo Alto to square off over firewall tech
Trial to proceed late February
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/10/juniper_palo_alto_patent_case_grinds_on/
A long-running legal battle between Juniper Networks and Palo Alto Networks is due to proceed to trial on 24 February
Juniper’s US patent US 7,779,459, “Method and apparatus for implementing a layer 3/layer 7 firewall in an l2 device”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Open Source — The Last Patent Defense?
http://www.outercurve.org/Blogs/EntryId/137/Open-Source-The-Last-Patent-Defense
When Richard Stallman wrote in GPL2 “any free program is threatened constantly by software patents” he crystallized the ideological battle between open source software and the software patent business. In 1991 when GPL2 was released, that battle was in nascent stages. Today each of open source licensing and software patenting has come to its fullest flower
In patent litigation defense, every little bit helps. Today, patent defendants should be paying attention to open source licensing and its possible effect on patent infringement claims.
There have been at least two cases where defendants have successfully used open source license enforcement as a defensive tactic in a patent lawsuit.
In both these cases, the patent plaintiff was using open source software of the defendant, and the patent defendant discovered a violation of the applicable open source license that it used to turn the tables on the plaintiff.
Open source licenses — particularly those written in the last 10-15 years — contain two kinds of provisions that bear upon patent litigation strategy.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft signs Android patent deal with Voxx Electronics
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-signs-android-patent-deal-with-voxx-electronics-7000026329/
Summary: Microsoft has added Voxx Electronics to its list of Android patent licensees.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Inventor who shocked tech world stumped by 43-year patent delay
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-inventor01-20140301,0,255272.story
Forty-three years is too long even for Gilbert P. Hyatt, the dogged inventor who once shocked the computer industry and got rich.
Hyatt said he’s been waiting that long for a U.S. ruling on whether his electronic signal to control machinery should be granted a patent. The patent-approval process takes 28.3 months on average. His idea for liquid crystal displays? That’s been sitting in the Patent and Trademark Office for 35 years.
“The patent office doesn’t want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they’re just bottling it up.”
No one is able to put a price tag on what licensing those two patents would cost technology companies.
“These were fundamental technologies and even though the industry has grown tremendously, they are based on those fundamental technologies,” Hyatt, who still works in his private lab each day, said in a telephone interview.
The patent office, which issued 302,948 patents last year and receives more than 500,000 new requests annually, won’t say what’s in Hyatt’s two pending applications.
Because the filings are so old, they fall under a law that keeps them confidential
It took Hyatt 20 years to get his 1990 microprocessor patent. He filed the application around the same period as the two still pending.
Hyatt, who speaks softly in conversations, doesn’t hesitate to fight.
While some of Hyatt’s patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google, Samsung Said to Express Microsoft-Nokia Concern to China
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/google-samsung-said-to-express-microsoft-nokia-concern-to-china.html
Google Inc. (GOOG) and Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) joined Chinese mobile phone makers in expressing concern to China that Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)’s bid to take over Nokia Oyj (NOK1V)’s phone business may result in higher patent licensing fees, two government officials familiar with the matter said.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Court allows EFF to keep donor list secret from patent troll
Podcast campaign supporters won’t be revealed
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/10/eff_patentbattle_donor_names_stay_secret_for_now/
The Electronic Frontiers Foundation in America has won a smackdown against a patent troll that was demanding names of donors to a campaign against its patents.
The battle began last year, when the EFF began a campaign against patents that Personal Audio has been using to try and take ownership of podcasting. Personal Audio has won a case against Apple, and as the EFF notes is also suing a number of podcasters and three US television networks.
Tomi Engdahl says:
ZTE deal to pay Microsoft Android royalties leaves Motorola exposed
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/24/zte-android-patent-microsoft
Deal with Chinese handset maker means 80% of Android smartphone sellers in US are covered and ‘majority’ worldwide by patent deal – but will Google subsidiary sign?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/14/03/12/0011257/apple-demands-40-per-samsung-phone-for-5-software-patents
“Apple and Samsung couldn’t agree on a patent cross-license even though their CEOs met recently.”
“Apple-hired expert will present to a California jury (already the third jury trial in this dispute) a damages claim of $40 per device (phone or tablet) for just a handful of software patents.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent Debate Spawns Stanford Study
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1321398&
The debate over patents has spawned a gathering of some of the nation’s top intellectual property thinkers at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Their recent symposium here is expected to generate a series of events and studies over the next five years on whether the US patent system helps or hinders innovation.
“There are many strong positions but a weakness of empirical evidence,” said Stephan Haber, a Hoover Institution fellow who kicked off the event. “The goal is to bring evidence and reason to bear, regardless of which way it points us. We are in the business of advocating for the truth.”