What A Shock: Another Wireless Standard Beset By Patent Problems
from the no-innovation-allowed dept
It's becoming such that news about another patent battle surrounding a new standard is barely newsworthy -- especially in the wireless space. Name the standard, and we can probably find someone claiming patents on it. There are still ongoing patent battles surrounding both WiFi and WiMax. The latest is apparently surrounding LTE, the choice of many mobile providers for their 4G next generation wireless. A company named ADC is claiming that LTE violates its patents and is now asking for royalties. As per usual, the company claiming patents over the technology just so happens to show up after a bunch of folks have committed to the technology. Funny how that works.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: lte, patents, wifi, wimax, wireless
Companies: adc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there - a location (not here)
their - possessive, belonging to them
they're - contraction of "they are"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward:
there - a location (not here)
their - possessive, belonging to them
they're - contraction of "they are"
English Nazi. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Proofreader
Are you claiming the usage of the term THERE is improper here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Proofreader
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I second that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jumping to conclusions does not become you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nor does making insinuations without backing them up become you.
Would you prefer to elaborate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you have information to the contrary, then perhaps you should offer it up for consideration and discussion. Until then the most that can honestly be said is that there is a large company (about 9K employees) that holds various patents that may be pertinent to 4G.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who said they acted in an "untoward manner"?
I simply noted that they're asking for patent royalties now that everyone has agreed on the standard.
Actually, come to think of it, that is rather untoward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stander
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also learned that the standard setting companies are currently engaged in negotiating cross-licensing arrangements among themeselves so that a baseline is established for them to move forward.
Similarly, I also learned that other companies likewise that a technological stake in what currently makes up the standard, but that they were not participants in the standard setting process.
Importantly, all of these companies touching upon the technology embraced within the standard are well-known household names, are quite business savvy, and will eventually arrive at a concensus agreement. This is totally normal, certainly not unexpected, and really nothing more than business as usual. Yes, people will gnash teeth during the negotiations, and tempers will flare and then subside. However, in the end an agreement will be crafted acceptable to all that the parties agree will enable the deployment of a new generation system that is competitive with currently existing market forces.
Do I see this as "Another Wireless Standard Beset By Patent Problems"? Of course not. Will it take a bit of time for things to sort out? Yes, but in the end it would not surprise me that to some degree the existence of various patents in the hands of numerous parties will lead to a business arrangement beneficial to the companies and consumers alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it humorous when the Dr Evil submarine rises to the surface firing off one or more claims upon the sacred "standard" which has been hammered out amongst the tribe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is, of course, one unfortunate aspect of patent systems in general. In the current vernacular such patentees have become known as "trolls". However, in this matter it does not appear that the term fairly applies to those companies whose work is well known and documented. Presumably, those setting the standard are well aware of such prior work and selected it for inclusion into the standard because of the benefits it offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I never claimed otherwise, but it IS symptomatic of the problem.
The standard has been set and many companies have committed to it... and then people come up claiming patent protection and demanding royalties.
If you can't see how that is a tremendous hindrance on innovation then there is no reasoning with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am not here to try and convince you otherwise, but merely to note that all of the "players" are relatively sophisticated companies and certainly settled on the standard with full knowledge of its key technological components and their associated developers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Historically, that has not been the case. So if it is the case this time around, it would be something new. And, even if it were the case, that would hardly make it right. In MOST standards settings processes that I've been party to, those with patents are supposed to declare their interests early on.
It's possible, though unlikely, that that wasn't the case this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Fucktard
More surprising than ADC being "not fully aware" of the standard-setting process being conducted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt it was an accident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's so funny... people see a patent as something that is valid once it's been granted.
I have a gut feeling... if ADC's going to act like a troll, their patents will be invalidated "in no time". After all, it's the whole LTE consortium, or whatever you want to call it, and their prior art against something those young, incompetent patent examiners managed to find in their "extensive" prior art study... There's a lot of prior art out there...
disclaimer: I have NOT studied ADC's patent portfolio or if they have patents outside of the US. If you see spelin mis-steaks you needs to go see an iDoctor (an improved version of the Doctor).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Merely FYI, printed publications from all corners of the globe are routinely cited as prior art.
ADC, and other large companies who have previously developed technologies serving as the foundational basis for the standard, in no way resemble "trolls". In the case of ADC is has been incorporating its work in products offerred for sale to the public. Moreover, it has not kept the technical details of its work hidden from the public. In contrast, the term "troll" is more properly applied to groups that secure a patent(s), do not take products to market...but choose instead to secure an income stream by asserting the patents against companies that are taking products to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]