Patent Dispute Means SanDisk Can Only Show Photos Of New MP3 Players
from the patents-and-innovation dept
In the US, the courts are finally recognizing that an automatic injunction in patent disputes doesn't always make sense. The same is not necessarily true elsewhere. In Germany, a patent licensing/management firm named Sisvel, who has accused SanDisk of patent infringement in many different countries concerning MP3 patents, has convinced a judge that SanDisk should be barred from even showing its new MP3 players at a trade show. Instead, they can only show photographs of the devices. This doesn't make very much sense. If SanDisk is infringing, then they should be fined and/or barred from selling the devices -- but as a recent article shows, no court case has even started yet. So why should the devices be barred? What good does it do to simply bar them from showing the actual devices at a trade show? If anything, it acts as a bigger attention getter for SanDisk, as people wonder why the devices are not being shown.Another interesting point is that Sisvel seems to defend themselves by pointing to everyone else who licensed their patents in the past: "It means that the 600 companies, the biggest ones, who have taken a license, they are stupid, because all of the other have paid." This goes back to the question some asked last week about why it matters to other firms trying to challenge a patent if some companies (especially big name ones) have licensed the patent. While it doesn't actually impact any legal standing, it does put additional pressure on them to settle. Patent holders use the fact that others licensed the patent in the court of public opinion to put pressure on the other companies. That's true even if the calculus from those who licensed the patent is that it's cheaper to just pay up than fight -- even if they don't believe the patents are valid or (if the patents are valid) that they infringe. Having other companies license the patents makes people believe that they must be valid, even if they are not.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
North
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calculus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Licensing Leverage
In my opinion, the most relevant factor about whether to pursue a declaratory judgment that a patent is invalid is not how many other people have licensed that patent, but how expensive it is to litigate the case. As Mike admits, the fact that everyone in the world but you has licensed the patent has little or no legal weight. If the cost to litigate a infringement / declaratory judgment suit was $1, no company would care how many other companies have licensed a patent. In the end, it is a cost/benefit analysis that compares how valuable the patent is to a certain company (benefit) vs. how expensive it is to have the patent invalidated (cost).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scamers
The patent system has been in place since the beginning and have had no problems until companies and mainly their intellectual property attorneys started to game the existing system to take financial advantage in any way shape or form.
These attorneys can be quite clever in their understanding of the patent system. They are very apt at holding the system hostage until someone pays.
This, if anything, needs to be stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scamers
Ah, but the way the system is set up, it encourages them to take advantage of the system. In most cases, they're not doing anything illegal. They're just using the system as it has been set up.
The patent system has been in place since the beginning and have had no problems until companies and mainly their intellectual property attorneys started to game the existing system to take financial advantage in any way shape or form.
That's not quite true either. First, the patent system has been gamed in the past. Second, is that there have been some major changes to the patent system in the last few decades that has contributed to the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]