Wi-Lan Just Keeps On Suing; Says Cable Modems Infringe Its Patents Too
from the does-any-networking-equipment-not-infringe? dept
Wi-Lan really is the patent troll that just keeps on suing. You may recall that the company -- which once was an operating company that totally failed in the market, because it was unable to execute -- has since become one of the nastier patent trolls out there, suing everyone it possibly can. Years back, it claimed that it had patents that covered the basics behind WiFi. After that, it claimed patents on mobile broadband offerings, like WiMax. It's also sued over patents on mobile devices and near-field Bluetooth technology.And it's not stopping there. Its latest move is to sue a bunch of cable firms for violating patents with their cable modems. Basically, if you offer any kind of networking, expect to have to pay some sort of tax to this company that couldn't hack it in the marketplace. Is that how the patent system was supposed to work?
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: cable modems, networking, patents
Companies: wi-lan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progress
No really, first time in a while a one liner made me gag on a piece of fruit.
Way to funny ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the difference between companies cross licensing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the difference between companies cross licensing?
IBM HP etc build up portfolios of (dodgy) patents to defend themselves against each other and especially against small players who might want to sue them for infringement. A bit of friendly cross licensing is useful to establish the validity of the patents in case they get attacked by a hostile entity - it doesn't amount to putting a value on the IP.
The problem comes when they get attacked by companies that don't actually produce anything - and so can't be sued themselves.
Also I am amazed that you think it is OK that this is just "part of doing business". After all I'm sure that's exactly the phrase used by mob bosses when they collect protection money....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the difference between companies cross licensing?
Cross-licensing is like non-aggression pacts.
"Intellectual property" is like state secrets.
Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. You need to stockpile them to protect you from the other guy's lawyers.
And patent trolls are like terrorist cells and guerrilla revolutionaries, with less to lose and the ability to wreak havoc on the bigger "nations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful with wording, punk
I have a US patent which states on its face that I have the right "to exclude others from making, selling..."
So if I bring a patent lawsuit againts one of those corporate monstrosities out there I become the same as terrorist ?????
Forgive me stupid punk, but I;m gonna kick you little stupid ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be careful with wording, punk
Nah, you would just be an angry dude who takes himself way too seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be careful with wording, punk
I'll quote myself exactly as you did, with some formatting for emphasis.
"And patent trolls are like terrorist cells and guerrilla revolutionaries"
At what point did I say that everyone who files a lawsuit over violations of a patent is a patent troll?
I don't know what your definition of a patent troll is, but we can borrow the Wikipedia entry's explanation: "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention."
Of course there will be some variation in the circumstances of different patent trolls, but the general concept is that they are people who don't create anything of value who intentionally try to make money just by filing lawsuits. Unless you fall into that category, you shouldn't take offense because my statement didn't apply to you. Unless you just feeling like getting worked up for no reason, in which case, have at it. As for the physical threats, I'll remind you that this is the internet, so there's no alley behind the cafeteria where I can fight with you after school.
You also missed that it was an analogy and I wasn't actually saying that patent trolls are the same as terrorists. It was mostly a rant about how corporations are acting like sovereign nations, which is a very disturbing, but not at all surprising trend (especially if you read about the history of the Dutch East India Company).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Be careful with wording, punk
A lot of very respectable individual inventors and companies fit this definition
Thomas Edison is one notable example - he never mass-manufactured and marketed any of his inventioms, yet amassed a huge patent portfolio and wasn't shy to sue
invention/product design and mass-manufactoring/marketing are two completely different things
Look at the back of your IPhone (if you can afford one)
"Designed by Apple in California, assembled in China"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Be careful with wording, punk
In my opinion, if an individual or company is suing others, "in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic...with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention," then they are not respectable.
Ironically, Thomas Edison isn't respected by a lot of people and has been retroactively labeled a patent troll by some. While I think he was opportunistic and underhanded in his legal dealings and patent filings, he did actually set up an electric power plant, so arguably, he did execute marketable inventions to some extent.
"Look at the back of your IPhone (if you can afford one)"
Oh, right. I'm probably just a poor schmuck who can't afford an iPhone because you perceive that I'm insulting people to whom I'm not even referring. That's logical, just like threats of physical violence on the internet...
I actually have a Droid instead because I'm not a Mac fanboy, but also, I can't abide Apple's consumer-unfriendly and litigious approach to business or their totalitarian approach to the user experience.
Apple does produce products, so they aren't necessarily a patent troll, but they're almost worse because they're anti-competitive, litigious, prone to spreading of FUD about rivals, and apparently their every marketing decision hinges on the whims of an out-of-touch megalomaniac.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Be careful with wording, punk
If you haven't already, you'll soon discover the uselessness of it. angry dude may or may not be a patent troll, but he is definitely a troll when it comes to discussing them. Once you come to terms with that, you'll be ready to make an account and wait for the next poor bastard to give it a try.
Welcome to the club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't you all know?
Al Gore invented everything concerning the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and Copyrights
Why?
Because technology progressed at a much slower pace. To give you two examples, the predessor to the musket was first used in the 13th century in China. They weren't replaced by rifles until the 19th century. That's a long time.
Also, take the example of the steam engine. It first became popular in 18th century and didn't lose momentum until well into the 19th century when it was replaced by the combustion engine.
That's a LONG time for an invention to be around.
Now consider today's technological advances. Computer technology is effectively obsolete in 5 years. Software and web technologies can have an even shorter lifespan.
Everything changes so much more quickly, that there really isn't a need for copyright or patents anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents and Copyrights
The internal combution engine has been around for a century, the wheel for 4000 years, the wind mill for 500 years, the jet engine for 60 years (110 yrs if you count Teslas disk turbine). Shortening the length of patents is a good idea removing them isn't. Removing the ability to sue if you are a NPE is another needed reform. Reduced damages based on actual percentage of product is another. Making it easier to remove patents that have prior art, or are already in use, or are obvious to people in a given field is another needed reform. Software patents just need to be removed. Business plan patents need to be removed.
there is more so dont get me started ... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any link talking about the above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trolls
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to pay�.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trolls
And just as credible, too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trolls
You can't handle the truth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"..to pay some sort of tax to this company that couldn't hack it in the marketplace."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I beg to differ......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LG Electronics
as they settled today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LG Electronics
as they settled today
How does that disprove anything? All it means is that it's cheaper to settle than to fight. That's evidence of how screwed up the system is. Thanks for proving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acer
Apple
Atheros Communications
Belkin International
Broadcom Corporation
Charter Communications
Comcast Corp
Dell
D-Link Corporation
Gateway
Hewlett-Packard Company
Intel Corporation
Lenovo
Marvell Semiconductor
Motorola
Personal Communications Devices
Sony
Texas Instruments
Time Warner
Toshiba
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The verdict
They tried to bring their patents in the form of products but the bigger players in the market (most of the people they are suing) just figured they could get away without licensing it because wi-lan was a small company and could not afford to go after everyone in court.
I don't believe that the people they are suing were not aware that wi-lan already owned the patents, as it is standard due diligence with most companies that they will make an attempt to file a patent, and in this process will find out if a patent already exists.
I'm sure if many of these companies licensed the patent from wi-lan many years ago, wi-lan would have the cash to continue their hardware/chip manufacturing, but because they didn't, the company has been taken over by a bunch of lawyers in order to get what is rightfully theirs.
Another company that i would compare to wi-lan in this case is qualcomm. They have a patent for CDMA and most cell phone manufacturers pay qualcomm a royalty when producing a CDMA handset. Nokia was one company that didn't want to pay qualcommm and it turned into a long fierce battle. I happened to work for a CDMA telco at the time and the nokia handsets we carried were the only handsets that didn't have a sticker that said "CDMA by qualcomm" The nokia handsets also had the poorest reception due to the fact that their CDMA implementation for the chips were slightly different then qualcomms spec, in order to try and avoid paying qualcomm the licensing fees. This was back in 2000 and eventually Nokia had to pay - they have been in court ever since....
The whole objective of a business is to make a profit and the laws are supposed to try and provide a fair playing ground for this so those that strive in good faith to earn are protected from tyranny. Because there is sufficient history that wi-lan did in fact try and take the product to market, and that the responsibility lies on the other companies to do their due diligence before going to market - Wi-Lan is in the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The verdict
They tried to bring their patents in the form of products but the bigger players in the market (most of the people they are suing) just figured they could get away without licensing it because wi-lan was a small company and could not afford to go after everyone in court.
I don't believe that the people they are suing were not aware that wi-lan already owned the patents, as it is standard due diligence with most companies that they will make an attempt to file a patent, and in this process will find out if a patent already exists.
I'm sure if many of these companies licensed the patent from wi-lan many years ago, wi-lan would have the cash to continue their hardware/chip manufacturing, but because they didn't, the company has been taken over by a bunch of lawyers in order to get what is rightfully theirs.
Another company that i would compare to wi-lan in this case is qualcomm. They have a patent for CDMA and most cell phone manufacturers pay qualcomm a royalty when producing a CDMA handset. Nokia was one company that didn't want to pay qualcommm and it turned into a long fierce battle. I happened to work for a CDMA telco at the time and the nokia handsets we carried were the only handsets that didn't have a sticker that said "CDMA by qualcomm" The nokia handsets also had the poorest reception due to the fact that their CDMA implementation for the chips were slightly different then qualcomms spec, in order to try and avoid paying qualcomm the licensing fees. This was back in 2000 and eventually Nokia had to pay - they have been in court ever since....
The whole objective of a business is to make a profit and the laws are supposed to try and provide a fair playing ground for this so those that strive in good faith to earn are protected from tyranny. Because there is sufficient history that wi-lan did in fact try and take the product to market, and that the responsibility lies on the other companies to do their due diligence before going to market - Wi-Lan is in the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]