Tag Archive for Patents

Mobile Patent Warfare

Patent trollOne of the hobbies i have taken up is patent troll watching. Thanks to Flowing Data for pointing out work by Mike Bostock which visualizes the data of who is suing who in the mobile patent warfare battles. To see a live version of this data network go to the bl.ocks.org website here.

Moblie patent suits

Apple ComputersThe data on this chart indicates that Apple at the heart of the mobile patent warfare. Apple (AAPL) has been involved in 9 patent lawsuits. Other prodigious mobile patent litigators include Microsoft (MSFT) with 8 lawsuits, Kodak (EK) with 7 suits and newly created Google (GOOG)/Motorola union is involved in 5 mobile patent warfare skirmishes.

25 Tech Firms Sued for Breaching 3G Patents

patent trollTechEye points out a case started by Golden Bridge Technology (GBT) which lists 25 tech firms alleged to breach a number of 3G patents.  In the case Golden Bridge Technology (1:11-cv-00165-SLR, U.S. District Court District of Delaware)  GBT alleges the companies have breached patents 6,574,267 B1, and 7,359,427 on standards for 3G wireless communications including devices and base stations. The defendants, the filing says, have refused to license the patents.

GBT said its developments were adopted by 3GPP “as an important and necessary part of the 3G and UMTS standards.” GBT is seeking damages from the defendants’ alleged past and present infringement. All of the defendants, in one way or another, use GBT’s technology, it alleges. GBT is seeking damages from the defendants’ alleged past and present infringement.

The defendants in the case are:

  1. Amazon (AMZN),
  2. Acer,
  3. Barnes & Noble (BKS),
  4. Deutsche Telekom,
  5. Dell (DELL),
  6. Exedea,
  7. Garmin (GRMN),
  8. Hewlett Packard (HPQ),
  9. HTC,
  10. Huawei,
  11. Lenovo (LNVGY)
  12. LG Electronics,
  13. Novatel (NVTL),
  14. Option NV (OPTI),
  15. Palm,
  16. Panasonic (PC),
  17. Pantech,
  18. Research in Motion (RIMM),
  19. Sharp (SHCAY),
  20. Sierra Wireless (SWIR),
  21. Sony (SNE),
  22. Sony Ericsson,
  23. T-Mobile,
  24. UTStarcom (USTI)  and
  25. ZTE (783).

In addition, it wants treble damages against T-Mobile, HTC, LG, Palm, RIM and Sony Ericsson, and lawyers’ costs.

rb-

Like I have pointed out again and again and again, many firm’s business plan has de-evolved into patent trolling.

Does GBT deserve to collect a tax from every innovator?

Big Blue Wants to Patent Patent Trolling

Conceivably Tech reports that IBM (IBM) has filed a patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to automates the management of intellectual property. The system that would manage Big Blue’s intellectual property (and other who could afford IBM’s costs) comes with a “defend” module to formulate a strategy in the case of patent infringement.

TechEye says that Big Blue’s patent is designed to automate the patent process from the beginning to end including suing other companies that the computer believes are infringing on a copyright.  The patent components are divided into a “direct” part, which includes the overall strategy such as R&D, portfolio, filing, budgeting and forecasting. “Control” covers factors such as market alignment, invention evaluation, IP valuation, and inventor training. “Execute” includes trade secret protection, trademark creation, IP landscaping, technology monitoring, and competitive intelligence. Conceivably Tech quotes the “defend”, “influence” and capitalize modules of the application:

“defending against infringements and invalidations of said IP rights based on said business strategies and monitoring market and competitor actions to develop risk management plans; an influence computer module including a standards influencing unit, a legal and regulatory influencing unit, and a policy influencing unit; and capitalize computer module for identifying potential licensees and potential assignees of said IP rights, and managing licensing negotiations, cross-licensing negotiations, and assignment negotiations based on said business strategies.”

TechEye points out the irony of how the software was created. They point out that an IBMer collected all the experience IBM gained from filing more than 100 patents every week and put the data into a chart. From there Big Blue decided that  given the way the IP world is shaping up these days, they should patent IP themselves. Thus IBM has patented the patent process. What they came up with is:

TechEye concludes that IBM’s patent application is really an automated troll.  They conclude that if the patent office approves this, then it means that every time you patent something you have to give IBM a fee to see if you did it differently from its process. Otherwise its software might send you a subpoena.

rb-

This must seem like a god-send to organizations whose business model has de-evolved into patent trolling. Some of these cases I have written about are the CSIRO Wi-Fi patent activities, all the craziness in the smartphone market and MSFT co-founder Paul Allen’s attempts to sue most of the web.

Gotta give it to IBM, its like TechEye says, “If you can’t beat the trolls, patent the process that creates them.”

Do you believe the U.S. Patent Office is still useful?

Does IBM deserve to collect a tax from every innovator?

Paul Allen Internet Tax Collector?

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has reloaded in his attempt to sue the world for patent infringement. Allen’s Interval Licensing filed an amended patent infringement suit against most of the leading online tech companies. The first try (which I wrote about here) was tossed out by the judge because it failed to point out exactly how each firm stole Allen’s ideas.

Interval’s amended, 35-page filing (PDF) claims that Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG), Facebook, and eight other online companies use Allen’s patents whenever they use a browser for navigating through information, managing a user’s peripheral attention while using a device, and alerting users to items of current interest. The filing claims that features as Apple’s Dashboard software, the notifications interface in Google’s Android operating system and Netflix’s (NFLX) viewing suggestions are infringing on Interval patents. It asks for unspecified damages from those companies as well as an injunction on them shipping any products with the allegedly infringing features.

It looks like Google’s Android operating system is directly targeted by the lawsuit including its notification system for texts, Google Voice messages, e-mails, and other alerts displays information “to a user of a mobile device in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user.” As before,the suit doesn’t target Microsoft (MSFT) or Amazon (AMZN) (which pays rent to Allen’s Vulcan Real Estate), even though both companies’ products would seem to infringe on the same patents.

Rob Pegoraro at the Washington Post writes:

the Interval claims continue to be insultingly generic. For instance, an allegation that AOL and Gmail’s spam-filtering software infringes on an Interval patent because it is “based at least in part on a comparison between the new email and other emails that have been received.” (Sure: Like nobody ever thought to make such a statistical comparison until Interval came along.) Later, it contends that when Netflix “generates a display of related content items” after “a user views a particular content item,” that infringes on an Interval patent too. (Right, because the concept of a store or a catalog suggesting a related item to a shopper didn’t exist until Interval scientists had a brainstorming session.)

Mr.Pegoraro continues:

Interval’s patents are junk. They describe general concepts that should have been obvious to anybody of ordinary skill in this field in the mid 1990s–and for which it shouldn’t be difficult to find “prior art” showing that other people had thought of the same thing years before. Had the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided the “high quality” examination of patent applications it promises, it’s hard to see how these patents would have been granted in the first place.

Mr. Pegoraro also cites PaidContent.org’s Joe Mullin in a commentary (emphasis in the original):

If patent claims on such basic ideas are found to be valid, there are surely hundreds of other potential defendants that could be sued by Interval Licensing. Paul Allen would be essentially a tax collector for the internet.

The firms named in the suite are:

Do you believe the U.S. Patent Office is still useful?

Does Paul Allen deserves to collect a tax from every Internet user?

More WLAN Legal Wrangling

The wireless patent wars wage on. Ericsson, (NASDAQ : ERIC) the Swedish telecommunications giant has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against a number of companies for alleged patents infringement of its IEEE 802.11 wireless products reports CENS.com. CENS.com says the businesses named  in the Ericsson’s lawsuit include:

The CENS.com article says the lawsuit involves all WLAN (wireless local area network) devices either incorporating chipsets supplied by:

or OEM products made by:

Tech Connect reports that Ericsson claims, the companies named are offering products that violate one or more of the following WLAN patents (number/title):

  • 6,466,568 – ‘Multi-rate radiocommunication systems and terminals’
  • 5,771,468 – ‘Multi-purpose base station’
  • 6,519,223 – ‘System and method for implementing a semi reliable retransmission protocol’
  • 6,330,435 – ‘Data packet discard notification’
  • 6,772,215 – ‘Method for minimizing feedback responses in ARQ protocols’
  • 6,424,625 – ‘Method and apparatus for discarding packets in a data network having automatic repeat request’
  • 6,173,352 – ‘Mobile computer mounted apparatus for controlling enablement and indicating operational status of a wireless communication’
  • 5,987,019 – ‘Multi-rate radiocommunication systems and terminals’
  • 5,790,516 – ‘Pulse shaping for data transmission in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexed system’

Ericsson requested the infringing companies to compensate its losses and asked the court to ban the sales of the infringing products. D-Link told CENS.com they cannot give any comment, because the company had not received any file from the court. But it will not affect the sales of its products.  Acer, told CENS.com that its legal department had received the related notice and has started judicial procedures.

rb-

I have covered other WLAN patent suits here and here. While I’m no patent lawyer, what this says to me is that the WLAN market is starting to level-off and firms are looking for “other” ways to make some money without producing products. A business tacit fresh from the 1980′s.

I also noticed that this suit between a European firms (Ericsson) and Asian firms (Acer, Netgear and D-Link) was brought in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This seems to be a favorite place for firms to sue each other, I wonder if  anyone has ever investigated why this court is so popular for alleged patent-troll cases.

One of the things that we instituted a while ago, in our RFP’s and contract’s is a clause that requires the VAR and the manufacturer to hold the end-user harmless in regards to patent suits the VAR or manufacturer may get entangled in.

Switch to our mobile site