Patent Battles Focusing On Third Parties To Push For Settlements
from the trying-to-force-a-settlement dept
Two recent patent battle lawsuits made news this week, and both highlighted one troubling aspect of patent lawsuits: patent holders trying to damage others beyond the company that infringed. Now, before the patent system defenders rush to post angry comments, this is not a new thing. It's been quite common for a while. Nor is it surprising. If you were a patent attorney representing one of these patent holders, you'd probably do the same thing: going after third parties is probably a good strategy to force the other company to settle. However, it does highlight how patent law is used in ways that clearly are outside of its intended purpose. That is, it's being used to punish plenty of innocent third parties by removing innovation from their grasps, rather than encouraging innovation.The first case involves a patent lawsuit concerning Microsoft's Visual Studio. WebXchange claims it has patents that Visual Studio violates -- but rather than suing Microsoft, WebXchange sued three Microsoft customers, claiming that by using the software, they were violating the patent. This is clearly an attempt to scare Microsoft into settling, out of a fear that other customers won't use Visual Studio to avoid getting sued by WebXchange. Microsoft is fighting back, asking a judge to declare the patents invalid, but in the meantime, WebXchange has been able to drag Microsoft's customers into a patent battle, putting extra pressure on Microsoft to settle.
The second case involves Spansion suing Samsung for patent infringement concerning Samsung's memory chips. In this case, Spansion isn't just going after Samsung, but demanding an injunction that would block US sales of a variety of popular gadgets that use Samsung's memory chips -- including iPods and Blackberries. Once again, while it's unlikely that a court would order such a block, by dragging other companies such as Apple and RIM into the mess, Spansion is abusing the patent system's threat of an injunction to put extra pressure on Samsung to settle.
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, settlements, third parties
Companies: apple, dell, fedex, microsoft, rim, samsung, spansion, webxchange
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's assume that Patent Troll has Patent-A which covers process X. Let's also assume that ABC Inc's business in no way relates to process X. So of course ABC Inc. avoids any situation wherein it needs to license Patent-A.
However, ABC Inc should not get off scott-free. Patent Troll's livelihood depends on corporations licensing its patents. By refusing to pay the license it is tortuously interfering with the troll's business model. I.e., getting money for doing nothing.
I think the patent realm needs a mandatory licensing structure similar to copyrights so companies cannot get a free ride by avoiding paying license fees for processes they have no use for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting theory, but unless you can show me otherwise, it lacks a basis in law. I'm not sure if you're being serious, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a court that would buy such a theory. What you or perhaps the trolls would call "tortuous avoidance" the courts would likely call "competition."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freaking techdirt lemming punks
One more time: THERE ARE NO PATENT TROLLS
Get it now, idiots ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freaking techdirt lemming punks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: freaking techdirt lemming punks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freaking techdirt lemming punks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: angry dud
angry dude foamed at the mouth:
Is this supposed to be apropos of something? The article never mentioned any "patent trolls".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With all due respect, YOU ARE
"Or don't you think maliciously suing third-party customers, who haven't developed or infringed any patents, on the theory it will extort money out of your true target by damaging their bottom-line is "troll" material?"
You infringe a patent by using patented invention, even if you bought it from Mshit
The fact that is's easier to go after consumers than MShit itself is the unfortunate business reality today for all of the small patent holders
Now get lost, punky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is easier to go after consumers and in this one, very, limited, isolated, and otherwise, I hope to never see repeated instance, I applaud it. This is very similar to what Microsoft is always threatening to do about Linux.
Their whole FUD campaign is based on this very premise. If you use Linux in your business, you're violating the patents Microsoft "has" and Microsoft will come after you...some day, maybe.
I hope Microsoft enjoys the sickeningly sweet cherry taste that is their own medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, the "troll," or in this case WebXchange, may be the idiot. By not going after its true target (Microsoft), WebXchange allowed Microsoft to take control over the situation by filing a declaratory judgment ("DJ") action in a jurisdiction that's likely unfavorable to WebXchange.
Microsoft and its customers can then attempt to get the courts to consolidate the cases in Microsoft's DJ action, as each case likely involves the same sets of facts as that of the DJ action. It may not work, but it's a good way for MS to please it's customers while sticking it to WebXchange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is Microsoft's indemnity clause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls
@ Woody - I think you've missed the whole point. Microsoft IS stepping up to the plate for its customers. The difference is that Microsoft is doing this in a manner that it can control and possibly win rather than just caving in to WebXchange and just dishing out some money to wash everything over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls
Just a bunch of keystrokes in a shitty little window of Mikey's shitty inet blog
taking coffee, beer or hard liquers can affect your typing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral of the Story
Guess that means I'll not be purchasing anything except water in a jug and stuff at the farmers market.
Too bad, because the economy need people to spend their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Mikey is an honest dude on CPF and BSA payroll
His Corporate Masters must be happy about his performance
Mikey should definitely ask for a raise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is angry dude high
I think its funny the guy wants people who know .net.
- Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]