FTC Smacks Down Company That Tried To Exploit Ethernet Patents
from the good-for-the-FTC dept
Over the last few years, it's been well documented that there's plenty of money to be made in using patents to shakedown companies who actually make products. Apparently, this is a bit of a problem for companies that hold onto patents that were actually licensed at more reasonable rates in the past. Take, for example, a company named N-Data, that had bought some patents pertaining to Ethernet back in 2003, from a spin-off from National Semiconductor. National Semiconductor had negotiated a deal with the IEEE that allowed anyone to license these patents for $1,000, in order to make sure its technology was included in the standard. However, N-Data, who was well aware of this deal, felt that now that it owned the patents, it could ignore that agreement and try to force companies using selling Ethernet products (now a widely accepted standard, of course) to pay a lot more than $1,000. Luckily, the FTC has stepped in and told N-Data to knock it off, pointing out that it needed to live up to the agreement between NatSemi and the IEEE, noting that if N-Data were allowed to ignore the agreement, it would throw into doubt an awful lot of technology standards that include similar patent licensing terms. It's interesting to note, however, that the decision by the FTC wasn't unanimous -- and FTC chair Deborah Platt Majoras voted against the decision, suggesting that forcing N-Data to actually agree to an agreement with the patents it bought would somehow unfairly be protecting large corporate interests. Who knew that actually living up to what was agreed to as part of a standards setting process was actually big company welfare?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
Filed Under: ethernet, ftc, patents
Companies: n-data, national semiconductor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The opposite would have been a bad precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The opposite would have been a bad precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if she owns stock in ... nah that would never happen.
Do the companies that already paid get a refund?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot, meet the kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A click wrap agreement where the buyer has no say in the decision, cannot negotiate and often is given no alternatives is QUITE different than an agreement formed between two parties where both parties negotiate in good faith and come to an agreement both agree to.
Calling the two situations the same is simply incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google her
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Googler Her (I second that)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re 8 & 9
CNN just had an article yesterday about how many times just the very few high people in the administration lied to us right after the WTC incident.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html
Quite a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re 8 & 9
Probably not at the supreme court level which is why they overturn so many lower court rulings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhh, so the poor consumer has to buy the music. Wow. Thats a new one. I didn't know that it was forced on them. Oh, and the "buyer" (and that is as a joke, since so many don't actually buy)does have an alternative. Don't listen to the music by not downloading it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not what I said, no matter how much you wish it was.
But you have to admit that a *purchase* generally conveys a different set of rights than a *negotiated contract*.
Btw, why have you stopped identifying yourself by your nom de plume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, I need to word it that any purchase made with this card, entitles the purchaser to FULL and UNABRIDGED rights to whatever goods are being purchased. The former seller agrees to not hold liable, nor make any claims of ownership or rights to the goods purchased using this card.
Now... why couldn't I do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]