Smartphones Patented... Just About Everyone Sued 1 Minute After Patent Issued
from the wasting-no-time dept
This past Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent on "a mobile entertainment and communication device." Reading the patent, you realize it describes the quite common smartphone. It's a patent for a mobile phone with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files. The patent holding firm who has the rights to this patent wasted no time at all. At 12:01am Tuesday morning, it filed three separate lawsuits against just about everyone you can think of, including Apple, Nokia, RIM, Sprint, AT&T, HP, Motorola, Helio, HTC, Sony Ericsson, UTStarcomm, Samsung and a bunch of others. Amusingly, the company actually first filed the lawsuits on Monday, but realized it was jumping the gun and pulled them, only to refile just past the stroke of midnight.As the link above explains, the patent itself is based on a bunch of continuation filings, which are commonly used by patent holders who want broad patents to cover the latest technologies well after they've already come about in the market. It would seem like the concept itself, merely combining a bunch of things that people were already talking about, should never have been granted based on the Supreme Court's recent KSR ruling that merely combining existing concepts doesn't deserve a patent. Also, as noted in the comments to the link above, it would appear that there's a fair amount of prior art. In fact, Apple even sent over some prior art concerning the patent just before it was originally supposed to be issued last summer -- but somehow patent holder's lawyers talked their way around it. In the meantime, it looks like we've got yet another case of an overly broad and obvious patent being used against a huge number of firms. I'm sure that's exactly what Thomas Jefferson expected when he created our patent system.
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: patents, smartphones
Companies: apple, at&t, helio, hp, htc, motorola, nokia, rim, samsung, sony ericsson, sprint, utstarcomm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves !
This country goes straight to hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I knew it, I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing assholes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you remove the massive amount of money they mak
If a company would for once just fight this hard and not settle...
The simple fact is if they can get the patent and then makes tons of money for not doing anything then they are going to keep on doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry dude, the most loyal Techdirt follower
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(+1 Insightful)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
You did not have an origional idea, although I can see a 14 year old not being aware of something called a VCR in 1992.
For a better point of reference, I was "recording my shows ahead of time", "rewinding" and "fast forwarding" over commericals as far back as 1983 when my family aquired it's first VCR.
That is 25 years ago, and VCR's had existed since about the 1975-1976 timeframe at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I certainly hope this gets smacked down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My new patent
I will be patenting 'patents'. Prepare to have your a$$es sued!
I will also be filing a patent on the question mark so I can sue anyone that questions me.
PS And maybe that inflection at the end of your voice when you ask questions so I have text and speech covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My new patent
Simpsons Did It!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
mike for the win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
Oh, please. Everyone knows that Dr. Evil's adoptive father invented the question mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My new patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prior art or another target
I'd submit my Samsung a920 cell phone as prior art but that might get Samsung added to the list of targets.
I think we should require that anyone who files a patent infringment lawsuit actually has a product based on the patent. I mean, patents are supposed to grant a temporary monopoly so the inventor can profit from their idea, right? But these trolls don't actually have a product so how can they say there's a market failure from their patent being infringed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prior art or another target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: prior art or another target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prior art or another target
Would my laptop with a web cam then qualify?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prior art or another target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm confuzzled...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your patent has been rejected as it is : Obvious
http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/minerva-v-rim-another-case-opened-too.html
as techsphinx's idea is excellent.
======= Start ==============
January 22, 2008 9:58 PM
techsphinx said...
Why is it that almost any legitimate technology practitioner, can, within a matter of mere minutes, clearly identify whether a patent is truly, innovative, unique, and non-obvious? Furthermore, I would wager that a hypothetical tech-practioner peer panel would quickly come to a high degree of consensus on which patents were non-obvious and truly innovative, and which were obvious and/or frivolous. As a non-lawyer, who has been a successful defendant in an EDTX patent suit, it is precisely this enormous chasm between PTO behavior/patent law and outright common sense that is dumbfounding to most tech practioners.
Not that other areas of patent reform will not be very valuable, but ultimately, the bar for obtaining a patent is so absurdly low that it practically defies imagination
========= ends ===========
I cannot help but think that Techsphinx has it right. These silly patents are
damaging to the US in so many ways. They:-
- draw away technical talent that could be better used innovating.
- consume a lot of time and money of firms that are innocent defendants.
I think that 'techsphinx' is right. A technical group that would stop
obvious patent being granted would had great value to the patent process.
Like the idea in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" on good essays:
"You know it when you see it".
Such a reform is good for every one. Consumers, companies and inventors.
The US is in danger of losing its economic lead - patents such as these only hasten the process.
(Perhaps one reform could be that the winner pays all the bills, this might deter some of these claims. More technically savvy judges would also be helpful!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:-(
I believe that we need to take Charles H. Duell's advice and close the Patent Office. At least for a short while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angry dude - defending the indefensible
Any general knows there is some ground you cannot defend and that spreading your forces out thinly to try weakens the whole army.
Maybe angry dude is so aggressive about defending trivial patents because his only hope of profiting from his work is if trivial ideas can be patented? :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: angry dude - defending the indefensible
I'm not defending junk patents here, I'm just shitting here on techdirt..
That's all
You gotta shit somewhere dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: angry dude - defending the indefensible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the indefensibl
Did youe mom drop you on your head when you were little ?
Why do you think that I want to disclose my patent here so you can shit on it without understanding a single paragraph ?
This place is for shitty talk, not for serious patent claim analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the indefen
How about you show us your patent and then explain it to us? We aren't as dumb as you think.
As of present, we have this as your patent (Please tell me I'm wrong). If this is your patent, I can understand you don't want to admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the indefen
Where do you post "serious patent claim analysis"? You post over on patentlyo, but it is the same crap you post here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the ind
The guy who owns that blog (establishment patent attorney or at least that's what he thinks about himself) apparently doesn't like what I post there (100% truth BTW) ...
I guess it happened after I called that piece of corporate shit Marshall Phelps a real patent troll
Heck nobody likes to hear the truth...
Still I can do all I want from home, so you will have a pleasure of reading some more of my comments on various personalities involved with so-called "patent reform"..
beer time now
see you in hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the indefen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ooo! ooo!
I believe this means all you bastards owe me some money.
What firm got this patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throw this out of the court system and charge them with attempted extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: angry dude - defending the indefensible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: angry dude - defending the indefensible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm in the money!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lovely
I'm really getting tire do fwatching this shit go on, no wonder we're falling so far behind in technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone actually look this thing up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?
In 1997, all you had to do was watch old branding videos from 1993 from AT&T.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?
I don't know what everyone else was doing in 1997, but everyone I was around was talking about combining the internet with everything, fishtanks, soda machines, coffee makers, refrigerators, phones, etc. It was clear at the time that these things would happen, what wasn't clear at the time was that patent trolling would be profitable. It looks like the original idea of the patent was "combine the internet with a phone". That was novel then, though I am not sure it was non-obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?
Just because something didn't exist ten years ago doesn't mean it's non-obvious. A phone is a communication device. Everybody wants to get on the internet. Cell phones need screens, to display caller ID, contacts, etc. Tell me nobody would realize that screens could be made color and a phone can connect to the internet. Once you're connecting, of course you want to download files. Which means you'll want removable storage. And a camera phone is just two devices that people like to have. You can't just slap existing things together and get a patent on that. Maybe to a caveman, but for a person in today's world, (or 1997) which is filled with color screens, cell phones, digital cameras, portable computing devices, and the internet, a device like this is simply a logical step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?
So this is a good point. I'm not a patent attorney, and this analysis is based on just observations.
As a patent holder, you should have two goals with the patent:
1.) Bring the product to market.
2.) License the innovation to others.
Unfortunately a third result has surfaced in the past few years, which is to do neither, and sue for back royalties. Remember, once the patent is filed, you do recieve a "patent pending" status which allows you to proactively market your invention while the final pieces are delivered.
Those who fail to market the pending patent/idea/invention, maybe should be scrutinized more carefully before patent status is granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?
1.) Bring the product to market.
2.) License the innovation to others."
Well said, dude, but have you ever tried ?
Try it once and you'll sing a different tune
Unless you have at least 10 mil in the bank you can do neither...
No prospective licensee will even talk to you, for a simple reason: you can't sue them for patent infringement
a harsh reality check for undercapitalized patent holders trying to license their patents
Alex Poltorak wrote a book on realities of patent licensing
Read it, dude:
http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Licensing-Intellectual-Property-Wiley/dp/0471432334/ref=pd_b xgy_b_text_b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anyone actually look this thing up
1.) Bring the product to market.
2.) License the innovation to others."
angry dude:
Well said, dude, but have you ever tried ?
Try it once and you'll sing a different tune
Unless you have at least 10 mil in the bank you can do neither...
So I know two people from College who had great idea, found a lawfirm to market the idea to. The lawyers believed it was great idea, and decided to fund the costs to file the patents for a percentage of the royalty.
In the end, it ended up paying for my friends college while I was slaving away.
So yes. I know what it's about. Unfortunately NokiaCapsule or whatever the devil it is, isn't marketable because it's not technically possible using today's technology.
Good Luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Strategy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troubles with the Nokiacapsule
Many troubles exist with the NokiaCapsule. The first, and most glaring one is that you have one year from disclosure of an idea to file a patent for it. I believe the video posted showed a post date of sometime early last year.
Then we get into the Fesability/Go-To-Market analysis:
From a technology perspective, I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's damn near impossible. For example, to get a battery with energy density to drive a 1-watt transmitter (this is the power that phones transmit on) requires new batteries that, quite frankly don't exist. Then there's the ten-gig of memory, which requires space in the form of sdram chips, and unfortunately that hasn't miniturized to the point where it can be packaged into a device small enough to enter your ear canal.
If a device could be small enough to enter into your ear canal that emits 1.6 watt of power, then, erm.. the FDA would be very interested in it as they have SAR/radiation absorption that eneds to be addressed.
Then there's specialized ASICs that need to be created to run the voice recognition. I imagine you'll need an entire R&D team to accomplish this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put the disgust into context
It is easy to criticize the PTO, but the truth is the government doesn't fund enough patent examiners to do a decent job screening out the nonsense. It is also easy to criticize the "leech" lawyers, and we should also support a rule that allows a prevailing defendant to recover attorney fees and costs from both the plaintiff and the lawyer who takes a BS case on a contingent basis.
All that said, there will always be a debate about whether a particular patent promotes or diminishes creativity. We hear the debate all the time: drugs and other medical technology should not be patented vs. without patents we would not have drugs or other medical technology. But if you consider the entire system as a whole, and don't focus on the most eggregious cases, the system still works pretty damn well. The USA is not in any danger of losing its position as the birthplace of innovation and the best technology.
There are far more serious problems to bringing good technology to markets. For example, much of the developed world has faster internet connections than we do because the phone, cable, and wireless companies have so much invested in older technology, because the government doesn't invest in newer technology, and because the old guard uses political power to stop new entrants into the market. Where the USA lags, it is more because of monopoly power and political economy more than our patent system.
Our long-term economic and technological advantage is also eroded by the way we allocate other resources. The trillion-dollar invasion/occupation of Iraq might, arguably, have some payoff in the future. But imagine spending the same trillion dollars on wind/solar/geothermal/coal, new communications technology, new agricultural technology, etc., all of which yields a fairly certain payoff. In the big picture, the cheesy patent extortion cases are pretty small compared with the vast misallocation of resources foisted upon us by the politicians.
Regards, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put the disgust into context
We're seeing an incredible misallocation of funds and resources. The cycle is broken, and transfer of wealth outside of the US needs to be re-evaluated.
Imagine where we'd be if even 10% of what you proposed was accomplished. Countrywide Mortgage has been on the brink of collapse for sometime now. The company that holds 1 out of 5 mortgages in the USA. Gold is at a ten year high which indicates that the strength of the dollar is declining in the world market's eyes.
And yes, it's simple economics. The reallocation of resources to outside the US should be scruitinized by the next administration.
On a personal note, what do you think of Ron Paul?
Kudos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put the disgust into context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever hear of Dick Tracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did anyone actually read the patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clear Prior Art: IBM Simon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another gleaming example of the worst of us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taken from press releases at the company website:
http://www.gigatec.com/
-------------------------------
Cell Phone Manufacturers' License Issue
Minerva Offers Generous Terms
-------------------------------
November 1st, 2003 -- Minerva Industries, Inc. is providing the following options to the cell phone manufacturers and line carriers:
1. To settle prior to a filed suit: 6% Royalties.
2. After a suit has been filed, the rate will be 8%royalties, plus attorneys' fees and other damage charges that may apply. For settlement or license negotiation, contact our patent or trial attorneys.
Note: International roaming calls will be handled separately once the guidelines from the U.S. Government agency are received. Over 50 million visitors use international roaming calls annually. That causes at least 200 million dollars damages in U.S. tax revenues annually. The phone line carriers already have reached a permanent agreement for the international roaming calls with over 120 countries (e.g. AT&T Wireless 120 to 220 countries roaming).
-------------------------------
Memory Cards and USB
July 18, 2005
-------------------------------
Minerva Industries Inc. ,after a year of anticipation, received a response from the USPTO to file two divisional patent applications for memory cards and USB stemming from the 139 continuing claims on patent # 6278884 and # 6681120.
These patent filings apply to accessories dealing with secured memory cards with pre-recorded data or flash memory and USB data cable connections between cell phone and various devices.
Cell phone accessory manufacturers of memory cards and USB connectors each estimate supplying over 500 million units this year.
-------------------------------
CEO Message:
-------------------------------
CEO's Message 2006
It is my hope to declare the year 2006 with you as the year of great harvest. For the past nine years we invested our time, energy, and over $800,000 in legal fees alone to support our cell phone patent. I believe that we have thoroughly amended the core features of the cell phone patent to truly be state of the art, surpassing any patents of the past and permanently securing opportunities for devices of the future.
Just as the title of the invention states, “a mobile entertainment and communication device for communicating with the Internet or remotely located telephones”, our cell phone patent includes core features for capturing, storing, reproducing, transmitting, receiving, uploading, and downloading of combined sounds and real-time moving images through the Internet as well as between cell phones and other devices (computer, printer, television, electronic devices...). Furthermore, the patent features a music player, multi-media player, games, radio, GPS with images, emergency call function, interruption, low ambient light, sensor activation, voice control, answering, wired or wireless earphone, speakerphone, controlling of skipped data, equalizer, balancing sounds, USB cable, audio recorder, video camcorder, audible alarm, secured socket, replaceable memory card and prerecorded data card. A separate patent also provides a universal charger and holder on the car dashboard to utilize the camera and other prominent functions of the Internet cell phone patent.
Although it was merely a dream in the past, 3G phones are now a reality with almost all phone carriers upgrading their systems to 3G phones. In fact, some of the core features of the patent has been used since late 2000. These recent 3G advances in the industry however opens more doors to take advantage of all our core features.
In 2005, approximately 780 million cell phones were marketed worldwide and 18% (approx. 140 million) were sold in the U.S. Surprisingly, an additional 50 million visitors from the remaining 82% of the foreign market utilizes core features in the U.S. without ever paying license fees. In consideration of this fact, it is our goal to pursue legal action to maximize compensation beyond the typical 5.5 to 6% fees in royalties.
I am very excited about the New Year with the opportunities ahead and the expectation of two to three additional patent grants. May the year 2006 bring good health and happiness. Please keep our corporation in your prayers as we prepare for the year of harvest.
CEO/President
John Ki Kim
-------------------------------
About CEO, John Kim
-------------------------------
During the past 39 years, Mr. John Kim has been engaged in various business experience and public services. He was the president of Korean Traders Association of America in 1977, founder of the World Overseas Korean Traders' Association in 1981, chairman of the Korean Olympic Supporting Committee of America in 1984, and the first president of U.S Korean American Inventors Association in 1991. Since 1983, he has been a member of National Republican Congressional Committee's Business Advisory Council, by which he was awarded a gold medal as a business leader. Mr. Kim has acquired patents for more than 20 inventions. He has won in a patent lawsuit over a conglomerate which lasted for three years. His diverse experience and prominent background are a strong asset for the company's steady growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically a few of you have said that this country is going to hell in a hand basket I must upon review of recent events concur it's only a matter of time before we are oppressed to the point of subjugation. And frankly to those that would rather trade freedom for security wake up retards. Get you some intestinal fortitude and fight for your right to survive its natures rule either you fend off your attacker or become food. If you want a government to protect you fine you can be their bitch I sure as hell ain't going to be.
And to the issue of greedy corperations ya'll can go to hell too, nothing wrong with providing a fun and useful product but you dont have to be a dick about it. You make it we buy it thats all there should be in this biz.
Im glad i can be happy with a life working as a dish washer I have everything i need and one hell of a computer guess you greedy CEO types could prolly learn a bit from us poor people.
BTW i dont need to be rich to have security all i need are the will to survive and the ability to fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
+5 Informative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, it will exist, early or late. How ultimate aim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only in the us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
filing date != closing date
They did *NOT* file a patent in 1997 for a phone with "music player, multi-media player, games, radio, GPS with images, emergency call function, interruption, low ambient light, sensor activation, voice control, answering, wired or wireless earphone, speakerphone, controlling of skipped data, equalizer, balancing sounds, USB cable, audio recorder, video camcorder, audible alarm, secured socket, replaceable memory card and prerecorded data card."
This is like seeing a computer in 1977 and patenting a 'portable versiuon'. Then wait 30 years and announce you have patented the laptop and every feature in a 2007 model. The application date is locked forever at '1977'. Congrats, you won the half the PC market today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art! are u serious ?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:It's only in the us... by European
When it comes to robbing the weak, no one is exeption. The case of European Patent Office (EPO) granting patent to a new variety of wheat is clear indication.
Monsanto.http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030825/agro.htm#1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Windows Mobile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No such thing
Nope, no freeking chance at all, dude
No lawfirm will back you up financially to file your patent, plus it's against the rules
It's all your money, dude (not much money actually, about 15-20 grand from filing to issue including all attorney fees)
Well, when I was shopping around for good patent attorney I found one crooked guy who offered me a "deal": a 50% discount on his fees in return for 50% ownership in the resulting patent...
needless to say, I rejected this "deal" outright and found another attorney, paid 12 grand right upfront... and 6 more grand upon patent issue
You don't know what you are talking about dude
Stop confusing other people, cause they might get a wrong idea...
No such thing as free lunch, dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SmartPhone Copyright!
I'm really curious!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't know what you are talking about dude
Stop confusing other people, cause they might get a wrong idea..."
Because angry dude's "experiences" MUST apply to everyone. No one is allowed to have a better experience with patents than angry dude. Please don't break his glass house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gift's and home decor website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
find au pair It helped me a lot au pair uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]