Tag Archive for Patent

Anti-Patent Troll Bill Introduced

A newAnti-Patent Troll Bill Introduced bill introduced in the House of Representatives attempts to deter frivolous patent litigation. The bill would force unsuccessful patent plaintiffs to cover defendants’ legal costs according to Daily Wireless. Introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act is limited to patents related to computer hardware and software.

House of RepresentaivePatent trolls don’t create new technology and they don’t create American jobs,” DeFazio said in a news release. “They pad their pockets by buying patents on products they didn’t create and then suing the innovators who did the hard work and created the product.”

The article explains that patent trolls often buy broad patents. The purchase allows them to file flimsy lawsuits against multiple companies for infringement. Despite very thin evidence to back their lawsuits, companies are often forced to settle. They settle because going to court can easily cost over $1 million in legal costs even if the company prevails, explained DeFazio in a press release.

Loser pays

Electronic Frontier FoundationThe Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the idea behind the SHIELD Act is simple. A plaintiff needs to believe that a defendant actually infringes a valid patent before it sues. If it doesn’t, then the plaintiff could be on the hook for the costs of litigation. They would also have to cover the winning party’s attorneys’ fees (which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases).

Fee shifting, often called “loser pays,” is not a new idea. It’s long existed in copyright law, it allows a court to award the winning party costs and fees in certain cases. In patent litigation, the EFF says this type of provision would help tilt the playing field slightly more in favor of the good guys. Fee shifting would empower innovators to fight back while discouraging trolls from threatening lawsuits to start.

The EFF has set up a website defendinnovation.org to lead the battle against patent trolls and reform the U.S. Patent Office.

rb-

Voter apathySigh – Today is primary election day here in the U.S. and I just got back from voting and a whopping 417 people in my neighborhood had voted. There are almost 17,000 people 18 years or old.

Voter apathy has everything to do with everything about where the US is today, including patent reform. Who are the politicians going to listen to?  I have covered the patent mess for a while here, here, here, and here. I doubt the political clout me and my 416 other neighborhood voters even matter when compared to the millions of dollars that Apple, Google, ATT, and the rest spend on lobbyists in Washington and Lansing to buy the legislation they want.

Have a nice day!

Related articles

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Patent Trolls Cost the US $29 Billion

Patent Trolls Cost the US $29 BillionThe United States patent system is costing the industry more than $29 billion a year in unnecessary legal fees. A Boston University study crunched the numbers and worked out that the legal action conducted by “patent trolls” cost U.S. companies an estimated $29 billion during 2011.

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) logoFortune defines patent trolls as entities that own the intellectual rights to innovations without innovating anything themselves, so-called “non-practicing entities.” They buy patents to sue infringers. According to the study, last year, 1,150 companies defended themselves against 5,842 patent troll lawsuits. Nearly half of those companies made less than $100 million during the year, which showed the authors that patent trolls aren’t just a problem for large firms, but rather a problem for smaller firms who have less money to invest in their own research.

The result is that the companies lost $29 billion in direct costs – legal and licensing fees. The study did not estimate indirect losses for defendants in things like delays in new products, loss of market share, or the need to change products.

Study authors James Bessen and Michael Meurer also found that the patent troll costs have escalated since 2005 when the study found a total of 1,401 claims were $6.6 billion in direct costs. The authors say increasing patent litigation in the U.S. is a significant tax on investment in innovation. To put the figure into perspective the total U.S. spending on research and development is $249 billion in 2009 but it is still a big tax.

Bessen and Meurer said it was rubbish that asserting patents played a socially valuable role in enabling small inventors to realize greater profits from their ideas. The report said that the costs of defending such legal action meant these organizations had less money to invest in their own research. The report claims that patent lawsuits were a social loss and not a transfer of wealth as the trolls claim.

rb-

I have followed patent trolls for a while here, here, and here.

The ineptitude of Washington to do anything right enables patent trolls. The report concludes “The rapid growth and high cost of NPE litigation …  should set off an alarm warning [to] policymakers that the patent system still needs significant reform to make it a truly effective”

Most reasonable people should agree with the study’s recommendation to increase transparency in the patent system and that the courts should rigorously supervise patent damages awards to make sure that damages are proportional to the value of the patented technology.

Related articles
  • Patent Absurdity: Trolling the Courts for Profits (aleksandreia.com)

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Wireless Charging for iPhone

Wireless Charging for iPhoneApple Computers (AAPL) has fired an opening shot in the wireless charging patent warfare. Patently Apple reports that the now Jobs-less firm has filed for patent protection on inductive wireless charging for iPhone, iPod, and iPad. The patent “Using an Audio Cable as an Inductive Charging Coil,” is available at the U.S. Patent Office website.

TApple logohe patent application in typical Apple style, calls for a “wireless” charging solution that uses wires. Apple wants to use headphone wires rather than supplying a power cable. The wired wireless charging system includes a tower that would sit atop your desk. According to MIT’s Technology Review, to charge an iPhone, specially designed earphones must be wrapped around the tower multiple times. Finally, the earbuds are to be placed on the device, where special conductive metal mesh would begin funneling electricity to your device.

Apple Inductive Charging Patent

TR says the charging tower is an eyesore, wrapping earphones around it would be a hassle and the whole thing is decidedly un-Apple-like in its unwieldy and cumbersome nature. Other opinions are “Incredibly impractical,” “ridiculous,” “like an iPhone scratching post,” “Tolkien-esque.”

WiTricity logoTR and Gizmodo believe this patent application is a “red herring” and Apple has other things in mind. Back in May 2011, MacRumors noted Apple’s interest in WiTricity, As MacRumors pointed out an international patent application filed by Apple which cites the original MIT paper as the foundation of WiTricity’s business plan.

rb-

I have already covered wireless electricity a couple of times. The obelisk charging patent is so out of character for Apple design that I believe it is a head-fake. With their closed eco-system, Apple can create a closed version of the WiTricity technology and charge a premium for it.

 

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

More Wi-Fi Patent Legal Wrangling

TMore Wi-Fi Patent Legal Wranglinghe wireless patent wars wage on. Ericsson, (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 patent infringement of its IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi products reports CENS.com. CENS.com says the businesses named in 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:

Foxconn logoTech 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 the 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’

D-Link logoEricsson 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 tactic fresh from the 1980s.

I also noticed that this suit between a European firm (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.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Who’s Suing Whom in the Telecom World?

Who's Suing Whom in the Telecom World?

Information is Beautiful has a great infographic showing who is suing who and the current state of telecommunications lawsuits. David McCandless at Information is Beautiful includes snippets of each lawsuit, which is helpful for understanding the overall picture. The diagram differentiates between ongoing and finished lawsuits with different arrows, while the size of the cubes represents the various company’s estimated revenue. In addition, if a company’s cube is red, it means its revenue is decreasing, while gray cubes represent companies with increasing revenues.

Who's Suing Whom?

The involved include a who’s who of the telecom industry:

  • Apple
  • Elan
  • Hitachi
  • HTC
  • Kodak
  • Microsoft
  • Motorola
  • Nokia
  • RIM
  • Samsung
  • Sharp
  • Sony Ericsson
  • Qualcomm

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.