TheBum may not being saying this, but I do. I feel that a patent holder must make an reasonable effort to exploit the monopoly privilege that he has been granted. Secretly waiting in wait for someone else to rediscover and exploit your idea should be grounds for losing your patent. The nitpicking and lawyering is what is a reasonable effort to exploit. -- Not to say that the Canadian company involved here didn't make an effort to exploit, I do not know. But they sound more likely to be a legitimate company in need of patent protection than your typical patent troll. But again, how did a patent get stuck in an IEEE spec?
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.
A lot of patents end up in this or that kind of standards - think CD, GIF, MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, DVD, HD-DVD or Blueray etc.
Big companies like Sony etc could establish some standard licensing body (for example, mpeg licensing) to charge everyone some crazy fee. Small companies cannot afford that, so their patents end up in standards without any way to collect, except lawsuits.
If the patent has merit, then they should collect. It is amazing people just jump on "patent trolls" attack without even knowing anything about the patents.
By the way, some people asked what took them so long? Well, the lawsuits covers patents from 94 to 05....and if the patent was issued in 05, it was probably filed in 2000 (yes, that's how long it takes to get it approved these days). So, everything sort of make sense - Wifi 802.11b (the first popular Wifi standard) was released end of 1999.
So, it is quite possible their patents are valid and they have a case.
What I don't agree with is that they are suing PC manufacturers who buy chips from OEM's. That is just crazy. Where does it end? Should they be allowed to sue the end users too? Patent lawsuits should be limited to immediate infringer - the Wifi chipset manufacturers in this case.
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.
Usually it's not that hard to make and market a niche product that implements the idea. You don't have to sell millions of units to have a real product.
I don't think there is an easy solution to the patent mess, but I have to question the timeliness of these lawsuits when WiFi has been widely available for many years.
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.
If they can't finance the implementation themselves, they could sell the technology to a company that can. This is how brains get paid. Inventors don't necessarily take an idea to market, they sell the idea to someone that can take it to market.
As aresee says, you shouldn't just be able to lie in wait, hoping that someday someone will come up with the same method for achieving the same goals, and pop up to sue said company.
Usually it's not that hard to make and market a niche product that implements the idea. You don't have to sell millions of units to have a real product.
I don't think there is an easy solution to the patent mess, but I have to question the timeliness of these lawsuits when WiFi has been widely available for many years.
Really? How many products have you brought to market?
Sure, if you invented a new coffee cup, it may not cost that much (a second mortgage on your house will do). But a chipset? Why don't you try that?
I'm gonna patent "white" and sue Apple for using it on their past product line. I waited a few years for it to be a success so I could be sure and get a good settlement.
I'm sure any judge has a Wi-Fi device of their own and sees the ridiculousness of this complaint. It just sounds like a ridiculous lawsuit to me. What are we going to do?? Have to chuck all of our Wi-Fi products and go back to hardwired systems? I don't think so.....
Last year I worked on a case involving AOL, they were being sued for streaming internet
radio, and yes the case was in Texas. The judge in the case had never done a Patent case, he was only familiar with immigration cases, same goes for the jury. Before the case even started, the judge ordered both sides to make a video tutorial on what the internet was and how it worked.
If this Canadian company really had a case, then it should have it tried in Silicon Valley with
A lot of patents end up in this or that kind of standards - think CD, GIF, MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, DVD, HD-DVD or Blueray etc.
Yes, I can see how patents can get caught up in these standards/specifications. But 802.11 is a IEEE standard, and I thought that IEEE standards were free of patent encumbrances. Isn't this the latest hold up on 802.11n, one of the patent holder didn't agree to releasing their patent to the spec and IEEE won't release 802.11n unless it is free of patent encumbrances?
Comments
TheBum may not being saying this, but I do. I feel that a patent holder must make an reasonable effort to exploit the monopoly privilege that he has been granted. Secretly waiting in wait for someone else to rediscover and exploit your idea should be grounds for losing your patent. The nitpicking and lawyering is what is a reasonable effort to exploit. -- Not to say that the Canadian company involved here didn't make an effort to exploit, I do not know. But they sound more likely to be a legitimate company in need of patent protection than your typical patent troll. But again, how did a patent get stuck in an IEEE spec?
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.
A lot of patents end up in this or that kind of standards - think CD, GIF, MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, DVD, HD-DVD or Blueray etc.
Big companies like Sony etc could establish some standard licensing body (for example, mpeg licensing) to charge everyone some crazy fee. Small companies cannot afford that, so their patents end up in standards without any way to collect, except lawsuits.
If the patent has merit, then they should collect. It is amazing people just jump on "patent trolls" attack without even knowing anything about the patents.
By the way, some people asked what took them so long? Well, the lawsuits covers patents from 94 to 05....and if the patent was issued in 05, it was probably filed in 2000 (yes, that's how long it takes to get it approved these days). So, everything sort of make sense - Wifi 802.11b (the first popular Wifi standard) was released end of 1999.
So, it is quite possible their patents are valid and they have a case.
What I don't agree with is that they are suing PC manufacturers who buy chips from OEM's. That is just crazy. Where does it end? Should they be allowed to sue the end users too? Patent lawsuits should be limited to immediate infringer - the Wifi chipset manufacturers in this case.
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.
Usually it's not that hard to make and market a niche product that implements the idea. You don't have to sell millions of units to have a real product.
I don't think there is an easy solution to the patent mess, but I have to question the timeliness of these lawsuits when WiFi has been widely available for many years.
/meh
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.
If they can't finance the implementation themselves, they could sell the technology to a company that can. This is how brains get paid. Inventors don't necessarily take an idea to market, they sell the idea to someone that can take it to market.
As aresee says, you shouldn't just be able to lie in wait, hoping that someday someone will come up with the same method for achieving the same goals, and pop up to sue said company.
Usually it's not that hard to make and market a niche product that implements the idea. You don't have to sell millions of units to have a real product.
I don't think there is an easy solution to the patent mess, but I have to question the timeliness of these lawsuits when WiFi has been widely available for many years.
Really? How many products have you brought to market?
Sure, if you invented a new coffee cup, it may not cost that much (a second mortgage on your house will do). But a chipset? Why don't you try that?
I'm sure any judge has a Wi-Fi device of their own and sees the ridiculousness of this complaint. It just sounds like a ridiculous lawsuit to me. What are we going to do?? Have to chuck all of our Wi-Fi products and go back to hardwired systems? I don't think so.....
Last year I worked on a case involving AOL, they were being sued for streaming internet
radio, and yes the case was in Texas. The judge in the case had never done a Patent case, he was only familiar with immigration cases, same goes for the jury. Before the case even started, the judge ordered both sides to make a video tutorial on what the internet was and how it worked.
If this Canadian company really had a case, then it should have it tried in Silicon Valley with
a jury of true peers.
A lot of patents end up in this or that kind of standards - think CD, GIF, MP3, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, DVD, HD-DVD or Blueray etc.
Yes, I can see how patents can get caught up in these standards/specifications. But 802.11 is a IEEE standard, and I thought that IEEE standards were free of patent encumbrances. Isn't this the latest hold up on 802.11n, one of the patent holder didn't agree to releasing their patent to the spec and IEEE won't release 802.11n unless it is free of patent encumbrances?