backtop

Print 24 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on Apr 7 at 5:21 PM
The foundation seeks to stop the sale of millions of of Bluetooth devices

Patent infringement lawsuits are a common occurence in the IT industry, but this time a major one has hit not just one, but a handful of top-tier companies. Earlier this year the Washington Research Foundation has filed a patent infringement suit against several tech companies with Bluetooth devices, claiming those companies infringed on intellectual property more than a decade old.

Now, the research foundation has added more companies to its list, bringing the total to include Apple, Dell, Matsushita Electronics, Nokia Oyj, Samsung, Sony and several others. A nonprofit group, Washington Research Foundation said that all the above companies market and sell products using technology that does not belong to them under the Bluetooth name.

Bluetooth was originally developed by an Ericsson AB engineer in the 1990's and was later further developed by Intel, IBM and Nokia. A company called CSR Plc., later started developing Bluetooth chips and its products are widely used throughout the industry. CSR Plc. is also called out in the Washington Research Foundation's suit, claiming that CSR Plc. produced chips without permission. CSR Plc. is currently countersuing the foundation.

According to CSR, the foundation's suit has no grounds. "The suit is without merit in relation to CSR's Bluetooth chips and CSR will defend its products rigorously," said CSR earlier this year.

Bluetooth technology has come a long way since its inception nearly a decade ago, and today is in virtually every mobile phone. Even laptops and many desktops are now integrating Bluetooth and the number of Bluetooth-capable peripherals grow on a daily basis.

The Washington Research Foundation assists universities in developing and bringing technology to market, and has generated more than $150 million for the University of Washington. The foundation is seeking monetary damages and even a court order barring the sale of all Bluetooth devices that infringe on its patents. According to statistics, there are more than 1 billion Bluetooth enabled devices in the world.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Law Suits
By feelingshorter on 4/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Law Suits
By Alexstarfire on 4/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Law Suits
By Gooberslot on 4/5/2007 3:05:42 AM , Rating: 3
You're confusing copyrights and patents. Patents don't last 75 years and have nothing to do with Mickey.


RE: Law Suits
By patentman on 4/5/2007 7:33:54 AM , Rating: 4
Idiot. Copyrights last (in most cases) for the life of the author plus 75 years. And although Disney played a key role in lobbying for the Sonny Bono copyright term extension act, they were by no means the only party jonesing for that extension.

Currently, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of the application, unless there is some patent term extension due to PTO delay in processing the application or from FDA proceedings. Patent protection is much broader and stronger than copyrighht protection, hence the shorter term relative to copyright. Not only that, but a patentee has to pay fees on 4 different occasions to keep the patent in force (1 to issue, 3 to maintain over the 20 years)

As for making a patent with an actual product, your statment makes no sense. Nobody "makes" patents "with" products. The PTO issues patents on applications drawn to inventions, where those inventions can be any new and useful machine, method, compositions of matter, etc.... The courts debated the patentable subject matter question and concluded that "anything under the sun touched by man" may be patented if it meets the patentability requirements.

Not to mention that national patent systems play a key role in the global economy. If you knew one whit about the reality and economics of intellectual property you would realize that.


RE: Law Suits
By theapparition on 4/5/2007 8:40:20 AM , Rating: 3
As a patent holder myself, I know first hand the value of intellectual property. I actually make a decent amount of income just from royalties associated with some of my many patents. And as a professional, I have the highest respect for you. Your posts are informative and relevant.

I don't pretend to know all the details of this case, but what I do find disturbing lately is the "patent squatters" who sit on a protected idea, and wait for mass market adoption. Then come in and cry infringment, looking to shut down operations or pay exorbitant royalties. While I fully support the right to intellectual property, I think patent holders also require some responsibility to protect their patent. (I liken this to the FL vote debacle, everone has the right to vote, but has the responsibility to make sure they know how to punch their cards!) If a holder makes no effort to protect their patent, and the invention becomes widespread/standards based, I think that they have relinquished rights, or that those rights go before arbitration.

I know this isn't the current law, but I'd like to get your thoughts on this.


RE: Law Suits
By masher2 (blog) on 4/5/2007 10:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
Let's take Blu Ray as an example. The format is a standard....but its also a proprietary. You can't get intimate details about the format without signing an agreement, and paying a fee. What if my technology was used within the format...how would I be able to protect it without joining the BD Consortium itself, and examining their documents?

The only problem with the patent process at the moment is the USPTO itself, granting patents for obvious application A patent is supposed to be for a "nonobvious" use...a standard most patent examiners seem to have forgotten.


RE: Law Suits
By theapparition on 4/7/2007 5:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
Very few issues in life have perfect solutions, and this was just an idea to start discussion.

quote:
The only problem with the patent process at the moment is the USPTO itself, granting patents for obvious application A patent is supposed to be for a "nonobvious" use

So true. Maybe they have changed their standard since the infamous Charles H. Duell mis-quote "Everything that can be invented has already been invented." :P


RE: Law Suits
By AntDX316 on 4/5/2007 3:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
what did u invent


RE: Law Suits
By Oregonian2 on 4/5/2007 5:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
You idea is an interesting one. Make patents like trademarks.

Gets tricky though. That one's patent is being violated can be easy sometimes in high-profile things (where your comment I think is a good one), esp if it's in a popular item such as this one (Bluetooth) or USB. But many would be much more obscure and to tell the truth sometimes I wonder on some IC patent infringement cases just how they could tell an IC used someone's idea without trying to reverse engineer everybody's chips. I've only two patents (albeit "assigned" to a former employer), and they'd be tough to spot despite being of a general nature(I'm sure they're probably being used all over the place).

Patents used to be defensive things -- something to have in case you're sued so that you can counter sue. Unfortunately it's now an offensive weapon too (despite a large percentage of ones I've reviewed in the past were either stupidly obvious to anyone trying to solve the problem at hand or techniques that I myself had used or seen used ten or twenty years previously and were invalid technically).

Such a mess. Sigh.. but then, Trademarks violations can go for a long time too and one's trademark doesn't go invalid until one doesn't do anything AFTER finding out about the violation. So long as this concept can be workable (like, does one HAVE to reverse engineer every chip that comes out for violations?) I like it!


RE: Law Suits
By theapparition on 4/7/2007 5:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. I think you raise some good points.

Maybe the solution is if that that idea was open source/public domain, and the patent holder did not defend it. It can be a mess, anyway you slice it, but times have changed, and I think the USPTO needs to keep up with times. For example, auctions have been around for centuries, yet someone can patent online auctions, which ebay was recently sued for (and lost). As masher2 points out, that's an obvious use which should never have been granted. Don't know the solution, but I think an informed discussion should begin.


RE: Law Suits
By Spartan Niner on 4/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Law Suits
By FITCamaro on 4/5/2007 7:01:01 AM , Rating: 3
Yes but it's still fun to make fun of Al Gore. He's a moron and a hypocrite.


RE: Law Suits
By Spartan Niner on 4/5/2007 12:50:08 PM , Rating: 4
I agree, his environmental speeches urging conservation of energy are all well and good, but he must be willing to "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk". Apparently his mansion in Nashville uses something on the order of 22,500+ kWh of electricity a month. That's almost $1400 for one month's electricity bill. My parents' home uses less than that in one year. Let's not even get into how much natural gas he uses in a month...


RE: Law Suits
By kmiller1700 on 4/5/2007 2:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
"It's not just a truck!"


RE: Law Suits
By initialraymond on 4/5/2007 7:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
There's all about money ... nothing else.
but if it really come to the court i don't think those Company will lose.


Hey guys...
By FITCamaro on 4/5/2007 7:05:59 AM , Rating: 1
Think you could add a little to this article explaining how and why all these companies are infringing. There's nothing saying that WRF even has the patent that's being infringed upon. If Intel, IBM, Nokia, and CSR all share the patent(s) for Bluetooth itself, then this would be a problem WRF needs to take up with the patent office for issuing the patents in the first place. Nothing is developed anymore knowing that someone else has a patent and doing it anyway hoping you'll be able to get away with it.

While most patent lawsuits are frivolous these days, ones where theres actually some merit are instances where companies probably didn't even know they were infringing on someone else's patents.




RE: Hey guys...
By patentman on 4/5/2007 7:25:00 AM , Rating: 6
"While most patent lawsuits are frivolous these days...."

Correction, while most patent lawsuits reported by the media MAY be frivolous. As a patent professional, I routinely assist in litigations where the patentee has a very good argument for infringement. Its never a good idea to make generalizations based on only the information the media chooses to spoon feed to the masses.


RE: Hey guys...
By vortmax on 4/5/2007 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really are patentman! Do you have a suit to go along with the name? lol


hmmm
By kattanna on 4/5/2007 10:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
i can't find the article now.. but i remember reading a few days or so ago that they are suing all those who use the bluetooth chip from this one company, but not those who use a bluetooth chip from another company.

anyways, shouldnt they be sueing only the maker of the chip, if there is some infringement? and not its customers?




RE: hmmm
By Oregonian2 on 4/5/2007 5:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Some chip makers will <special word here> their product, meaning that they will protect all of their customers against any patent lawsuits. This often needs to be done to convince customers to use their part for fear of being sued themselves. But maybe they're not doing that. In any case the chip maker would be sued as well.


Yeah uhhh.
By Chase Tacos on 4/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah uhhh.
By patentman on 4/5/2007 12:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually your point is not a bad one. There is a doctrine of laches in patent law that effectively prevents the patentee from obtaining damages for the time period over which he "slept" on his rights.


RE: Yeah uhhh.
By ZmaxDP on 4/5/2007 2:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
Your point may not be a bad one, but your way of making it is disappointing...


RE: Yeah uhhh.
By AntDX316 on 4/5/2007 3:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
because they were tired of the delays and unexpected cancellations of airlines traffic on the highway error on cruise ships

so they came up with a solution would elimate all of that together which would be to buy their own jet buy their own yacht put their kids and grand kids through college and have the money to pay for all the taxes and bills for life


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki