They have probably been in negotiations with Apple for years trying to get them to pay a license. Ericsson spent two years negotiating with Apple before they finally took them to court and we heard about it.
Pretty sure it's been reported before that Apple simply doesn't negotiate or even acknowledge most 3rd party patent royalty demands from NPE's, which might well be the reason they're brought to court so often.
Wait so the CalTech Patent was incorporated into the wifi-standard according to patently Apple. This makes me more confused. I thought if a company wanted their patented technology included a standard then they had to add the patent to a pool so users of the standard had one known license fee?
No there's not a requirement that your patent that applies to a standard has to be included in a pool with others.
Not sure, but I think that what mattinoz might be talking about is FRAND and disclosure of said standards patent(s).
If an entity is granted a standards essential patent, the relevant standards organization pressure that entity to disclose it and/or be fair about its licensing.
But obviously this entire system is far from perfect, which is why so much stuff winds up in court when negotiations fall through.
Maybe I am wrong though, or misinterpreted the original post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wait so the CalTech Patent was incorporated into the wifi-standard according to patently Apple. This makes me more confused. I thought if a company wanted their patented technology included a standard then they had to add the patent to a pool so users of the standard had one known license fee?
No there's not a requirement that your patent that applies to a standard has to be included in a pool with others.
Not sure, but I think that what mattinoz might be talking about is FRAND and disclosure of said standards patent(s).
If an entity is granted a standards essential patent, the relevant standards organization pressure that entity to disclose it and/or be fair about its licensing.
But obviously this entire system is far from perfect, which is why so much stuff winds up in court when negotiations fall through.
Maybe I am wrong though, or misinterpreted the original post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You don't have to offer your patent to a standard for bulk licensing even tho it might read on it. That's up to the patent holder. I'm pretty sure that Apple itself has withheld IP from bulk licensing that's pertinent to standards. Look up Apple and W3C web standards, and read Apple's statement about it here. http://xml.coverpages.org/AppleComputerPatentStatement.html
A pertinent excerpt from that document: "After careful consideration of the draft patent policy, Apple believes that it is essential to continued interoperability and development of the Web that fundamental W3C standards be available on a royalty-free basis. In line with the W3C’s mission to “lead the Web to its full potential,” Apple supports a W3C patent policy with an immutable commitment to royalty-free licensing for fundamental Web standards.... but should permit individual members to identify and exclude specific patents that they are not willing to license on a royalty-free basis. To accomplish this, a W3C member would be required to disclose and license to any practitioner all essential patents of a W3C standard. To exclude a patent from this royalty-free license, a W3C member could, on a case-by-case basis, notify a particular working group that it has patent rights that it believes are essential to that working group’s recommendation, and that it is unwilling to license on a royalty-free basis."
An even more recent example is "Pointer", another standards area where Apple would prefer not to cooperate tho they have IP that reads on it. Patent owners with rare exception are the only ones who choose what to do with their property, even tho it might be considered standard-essential.
Not sure, but I think that what mattinoz might be talking about is FRAND and disclosure of said standards patent(s).
If an entity is granted a standards essential patent, the relevant standards organization pressure that entity to disclose it and/or be fair about its licensing.
But obviously this entire system is far from perfect, which is why so much stuff winds up in court when negotiations fall through.
Maybe I am wrong though, or misinterpreted the original post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You don't have to offer your patent to a standard for bulk licensing even tho it might read on it. That's up to the patent holder. I'm pretty sure that Apple itself has withheld IP from bulk licensing that's pertinent to standards.
Gotcha.
I suppose I should do more reading up on all of this stuff. It's just that some it is so danged dense my eyes start to glaze ove..... SQUIRREL!
It's pretty much a staple of patent case law that you can't sue every downstream company that uses or incorporates a part that may or may not be infringing. Including Apple here is just a publicity stunt.
They have probably been in negotiations with Apple for years trying to get them to pay a license. Ericsson spent two years negotiating with Apple before they finally took them to court and we heard about it.
As I mentioned, It's pretty much a staple of patent case law that you can't sue every downstream company that uses or incorporates a part that may or may not be infringing. Any negotiations would need to be done with Broadcom. It's their part.
Ya, I don't get this. They've had YEARS to sue both company's. Look at the long list of Apple products, but they waited until now? How Apple can even be sued? They're just using a chip sold by another company. I get the whole Apple has the billions, we need to go after them anyway we can thing and grab a cut, but the waiting around for YEARS? Why not go after them 3,4,5 years ago?
Ya, I don't get this. They've had YEARS to sue both company's. Look at the long list of Apple products, but they waited until now? How Apple can even be sued? They're just using a chip sold by another company. I get the whole Apple has the billions, we need to go after them anyway we can thing and grab a cut, but the waiting around for YEARS? Why not go after them 3,4,5 years ago?
It may take 3,4,5 or more years to discover that your patent is being infringed and then you make take another year of protracted negotiations before you reach for the litigation button. Also if the initial agreement on the use of the IP prohibits a third party from utilising it without consent then it can get very messy very quickly. Note: I'm note assigning guilt just pointing out why it can take forever for these issues to become public.
They have probably been in negotiations with Apple for years trying to get them to pay a license. Ericsson spent two years negotiating with Apple before they finally took them to court and we heard about it.
As I mentioned, It's pretty much a staple of patent case law that you can't sue every downstream company that uses or incorporates a part that may or may not be infringing. Any negotiations would need to be done with Broadcom. It's their part.
Ah, so your advice to Apple is just ignore it? That would be unwise since the "staple" you mention is assumed to be patent exhaustion which wouldn't (at least yet) apply. Why? Because the IP owner has not been rewarded for his ownership. For a patent to be "exhausted" relative to any particular usage there must be a lawful sale/transfer without other restrictions. Broadcom and by extension Apple made no lawful sale or transfer if Caltech's infringement claims are true. It was an illegal use.
So you might then say it's not Apple responsibility anyway. Broadcom produced the chip. This is where joint and several liability may come into play. In that event Apple might end up responsible for the lion's share of any damages even if they don't have the lion's share of the blame. There's a whole lotta details that none of us are privy to that enter into any determination of who is responsible for what. That's why there's a trial unless Broadcom/Apple take a license on Caltech's terms before it goes that far.
ok, someone explain to me why Apple is a defendant in this lawsuit, given that it basically just buys the wifi chip from Broadcomm??? CalTech can certainly prevent Broadcomm from producing illegal goods, but why should Apple be punished for Broadcomm's patent infringement (if, indeed, it infringed)?
---
One thing that's never mentioned in these articles is the issue of indemnification. It wouldn't be a stretch that a company like Apple has an indemnification clause in their contracts with suppliers, such that if Apple gets sued for indirect infringement (meaning the patent infringing tech is entirely within the supplier's product), then the supplier would be responsible for covering costs of defense and any penalties levied upon Apple's use of the patent infringing tech.
However, it's another thing if Apple, or any product company, expresses technology within a suppliers product (chip) in a way that infringes a patent and the suppliers product on its own does not express the tech in such a manner. In that case it would all be on Apple. But the fact both are named in the lawsuit suggests to me that the patent infringement, if such exists, is expressed entirely within Broadcom's chips. Sue both and let them sort it out between them whether one compensates the other.
indemnification would still require Apple to pay the damages for infringement and then sue (or exercise their right under the contract) to recoup those damages from the supplier.
I'm a big supporter of public institutions being rewarded for their innovation. If someone failed to pay a licensing fee for a patent, then the patent holder deserves to be compensated.
Yeah, and fuck pure research from now on, right?! Only research that has an opportunity to pay off big in the future from now on, no more "pie in the sky" or undirected research, only research that pays will be funded going forward, and other investment will be put into patent protection departments and lawsuits.
"Hooyah," said all the lawyers.
Where did I say anything about pure research? Where did I say that public institutions should *only* be concerned with making money?
All I said was that if a public institution develops something that can be exploited for commercial uses, they ought to be compensated for it. That compensation may go towards partly offsetting the funding for pure research that has been cut by short-sighted governments solely obsessed with profit margins.
Comments
If an entity is granted a standards essential patent, the relevant standards organization pressure that entity to disclose it and/or be fair about its licensing.
But obviously this entire system is far from perfect, which is why so much stuff winds up in court when negotiations fall through.
Maybe I am wrong though, or misinterpreted the original post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
http://xml.coverpages.org/AppleComputerPatentStatement.html
A pertinent excerpt from that document:
"After careful consideration of the draft patent policy, Apple believes that it is essential to continued interoperability and development of the Web that fundamental W3C standards be available on a royalty-free basis. In line with the W3C’s mission to “lead the Web to its full potential,” Apple supports a W3C patent policy with an immutable commitment to royalty-free licensing for fundamental Web standards.... but should permit individual members to identify and exclude specific patents that they are not willing to license on a royalty-free basis. To accomplish this, a W3C member would be required to disclose and license to any practitioner all essential patents of a W3C standard. To exclude a patent from this royalty-free license, a W3C member could, on a case-by-case basis, notify a particular working group that it has patent rights that it believes are essential to that working group’s recommendation, and that it is unwilling to license on a royalty-free basis."
An even more recent example is "Pointer", another standards area where Apple would prefer not to cooperate tho they have IP that reads on it. Patent owners with rare exception are the only ones who choose what to do with their property, even tho it might be considered standard-essential.
I suppose I should do more reading up on all of this stuff. It's just that some it is so danged dense my eyes start to glaze ove..... SQUIRREL!
As I mentioned, It's pretty much a staple of patent case law that you can't sue every downstream company that uses or incorporates a part that may or may not be infringing. Any negotiations would need to be done with Broadcom. It's their part.
Also if the initial agreement on the use of the IP prohibits a third party from utilising it without consent then it can get very messy very quickly.
Note: I'm note assigning guilt just pointing out why it can take forever for these issues to become public.
So you might then say it's not Apple responsibility anyway. Broadcom produced the chip. This is where joint and several liability may come into play. In that event Apple might end up responsible for the lion's share of any damages even if they don't have the lion's share of the blame. There's a whole lotta details that none of us are privy to that enter into any determination of who is responsible for what. That's why there's a trial unless Broadcom/Apple take a license on Caltech's terms before it goes that far.
All I said was that if a public institution develops something that can be exploited for commercial uses, they ought to be compensated for it. That compensation may go towards partly offsetting the funding for pure research that has been cut by short-sighted governments solely obsessed with profit margins.