Canadian firm's patent suit targets Apple's use of Wi-Fi
Ottawa, Canada-based telecoms licenser Wi-LAN has filed a complaint in the US which charges Apple, other top-tier electronics makers, and even large retail chains with infringing on patents that it claims form the basis of Wi-Fi networking.
Submitted to court earlier this week in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas -- a region historically friendly to patent owners -- the lawsuit accuses 14 distinct companies and their sub-divisions of violating patents from 1994 and 2002 which cover the use of multiplexing to exchange data between transceivers, piecing together multiple transmissions to form a single stream of information.
Wi-Fi regularly uses this technology to transfer information across a wireless network, according to the complaint.
By creating, selling, or simply using Wi-Fi chipsets that allegedly use the technology, the targeted companies are treading on the patent, Wi-LAN's representing firm McKool Smith said. Companies named in the suit range from those designing the chipsets, such as Broadcom and Intel, to those that carry the end products in their stores, such as Best Buy and Circuit City.
Apple is named in the complaint as its Macs and handhelds use one or more wireless chipsets from those original manufacturers, but is not alone in its category: several major computer builders including Dell, HP, and Toshiba are also named as guilty of infringement by assembling computers using the reportedly offending technology. All the companies knew of the patents but chose to develop or sell the hardware regardless, the plaintiff claims.
The lawsuit not only demands a jury trial and damages in the event of a Wi-LAN victory, but also asks for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from any activity that would violate the patent. Effectively, it seeks to bar the production or sale of many Wi-Fi-capable devices.
Reflecting its typical company policy regarding lawsuits, Apple has so far chosen not to comment on the new filing.
Submitted to court earlier this week in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas -- a region historically friendly to patent owners -- the lawsuit accuses 14 distinct companies and their sub-divisions of violating patents from 1994 and 2002 which cover the use of multiplexing to exchange data between transceivers, piecing together multiple transmissions to form a single stream of information.
Wi-Fi regularly uses this technology to transfer information across a wireless network, according to the complaint.
By creating, selling, or simply using Wi-Fi chipsets that allegedly use the technology, the targeted companies are treading on the patent, Wi-LAN's representing firm McKool Smith said. Companies named in the suit range from those designing the chipsets, such as Broadcom and Intel, to those that carry the end products in their stores, such as Best Buy and Circuit City.
Apple is named in the complaint as its Macs and handhelds use one or more wireless chipsets from those original manufacturers, but is not alone in its category: several major computer builders including Dell, HP, and Toshiba are also named as guilty of infringement by assembling computers using the reportedly offending technology. All the companies knew of the patents but chose to develop or sell the hardware regardless, the plaintiff claims.
The lawsuit not only demands a jury trial and damages in the event of a Wi-LAN victory, but also asks for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from any activity that would violate the patent. Effectively, it seeks to bar the production or sale of many Wi-Fi-capable devices.
Reflecting its typical company policy regarding lawsuits, Apple has so far chosen not to comment on the new filing.
Comments
Tort reform is so overdue in the US.
-
Effectively, it seeks to bar the production or sale of many Wi-Fi-capable devices.
Well, what they really seek is a settlement that includes a licensing fee.
They are a tumor on the technology industry. They produce absolutely nothing at all and do nothing but harass companies who do.
I really hope patent reform happens soon. These lawsuits end up costing everyone more money in the end; defending them costs money and companies like Apple end up passing the costs to us.
Only the lawyers benefit.
Why should I really care if any of these companies have to give away a marginal fraction of their capital to Wi-LAN? Oh, that's right, I don't care.
You should care. This money doesn't come out of the manufacturer's capital, they slap it on the purchase price of the devices!
These patent troll companies need to be crushed immediately.
They are a tumor on the technology industry. They produce absolutely nothing at all and do nothing but harass companies who do.
I really hope patent reform happens soon. These lawsuits end up costing everyone more money in the end; defending them costs money and companies like Apple end up passing the costs to us.
Only the lawyers benefit.
Not all these companies are a tumour to the industry, just those that are getting too many patents for silly things. Quite often is the case that small companies identify a new and important method for achieving a specific result. This needs to be encouraged which is what patents are meant to do. However, having a patent for a multiplexing system given in 1994, when multiplexing itself is much older is ridiculous.
However, having a patent for a multiplexing system given in 1994, when multiplexing itself is much older is ridiculous.
One can't have a patent on multiplexing itself, but one can probably patent a novel and new means of implementing multiplexing.
Are Canadians slow?
What took them so long? My wi-fi system was bought in 2000. Plus, aren't 802.11b/g/n/a/q/x/z all "standards"?
Are Canadians slow?
<--- ...
You should care. This money doesn't come out of the manufacturer's capital, they slap it on the purchase price of the devices!
It doesn't, because the companies will never agree to pay royalties for each wireless device. Moreover, suing retailers that sell such products is on the verge of the ridiculous, since that would mean that we would be paying royalties twice for the same product. Again, if anything comes out from this it will be in the form of a one-time compensation.
I'm sure any judge has a Wi-Fi device of their own and sees the ridiculousness of this complaint.
Plus, would not said judge, if he/her or any family member having a wi-fi device have to recuse him or herself from the case to avoid any look of impropriety?
<--- ...
That's why I winked.
And I live in Detroit, so we are familiar with your casinos (in Windsor).
And now your dollar is kicking our dollar's ass! ( $1 CAD = $1.06 US)
As far as I'm concerned, patents should be treated like trademarks. With a trademark, if you don't use it, you lose it. The patent system needs to be overhauled to require that a product incorporating the invention be produced -- and within a reasonable amount of time -- or else the patent becomes void.
So you're saying that if some poor bastard with no money is really bright and invents something, but cannot produce it, they are to lose out--paving the way for gigantic companies to swoop in after expiration of said patent and produce it, without paying the original brain behind it? That sucks.
I also feel this way about copyrights. If a copyright holder is not making an effort to make copies available, or is actively using the copyright to suppress the work , the copyright holder should face the risk of losing the copyright.