Nikon Sued By Intellectual Ventures For Refusing To Pay The Shakedown Demand
from the pay-up-or-be-sued dept
Rob Hyndman sent over the news that Intellectual Ventures continues to ramp up its litigation efforts, with the latest target being camera maker Nikon, who has been sued for infringing on four patents. While I was just recently complaining about the lemon of a camera that Nikon sold me a year ago (and they'll never get another dime of money from me because of their response to the problems with their own camera), I'd never wish a patent lawsuit on anyone, even a company I can't stand. Intellectual Ventures claims that it had to make this move, because Nikon refused their offers to "take a license." Shakedowns sound so much nicer when you describe them as "taking a license." As for the patents in question:- 6,181,836: “Method and system for non-destructive image editing” by Delean and assigned to MGI Software Corporation. Prosecuted by Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman. Includes 16 claims (4 indep.). Was application 08/933,798. Filed 9/19/1997 & Granted 1/30/2001.
- 6,121,960: “Touch screen systems and methods” by Carroll et. al. and assigned to ViA, Inc.. Prosecuted by Patterson, Thuente & Skaar, P.A.. Includes 30 claims (3 indep.). Was application 08/919,527. Filed 8/28/1997 & Granted 9/19/2000.
- 6,979,587: “Image sensor and method for fabricating the same” by Lee and assigned to Hynix Semiconductor Inc.. Prosecuted by Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP. Includes 10 claims (4 indep.). Was application 10/330,287. Filed 12/30/2002 & Granted 12/27/2005.
- 6,221,686: “Method of making a semiconductor image sensor” by Drowley et. al. and assigned to Motorola, Inc.. Prosecuted by Huffman; A. Kate. Includes 34 claims (4 indep.). Was application 09/493,366. Filed 1/28/2000 & Granted 4/24/2001.
- 7,733,368: “Virtual reality camera” by Teo. Prosecuted by Perkins Coie LLP. Includes 22 claims (4 indep.). Was application 11/935,344. Filed 11/5/2007 & Granted 6/8/2010.
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: cameras, patents
Companies: intellectual ventures, nikon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not true. They are sued because the plaintiff feels they are violating their patents, and the respondent is unwilling to license the techonology. It's not because they refused to pay a shakedown, it's that they refused to license.
Nice try to color it your way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure Al Capone had a polite way of wording it too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But then again - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarc
Oh well, it's not like trying to design an inferior product to avoid infringement will prevent someone from getting sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarc
Oh well, it's not like trying to design an inferior product to avoid infringement will prevent someone from getting sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know i shouldn't have but i couldn't resist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More like: But, but, but what about the inventors. Intellectual Ventures is doing this for them. Without a market for patents, they'll starve, no one will employ them to develop these ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's not like IV actually contributes anything useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's not like IV actually contributes anything useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it's not like IV actually contributes anything useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess which of these patents should be valid?
6,181,836: SuperPaint April 1973 ability to save a copy of a file with differences without destroying the original
6,121,960: The first touch screen was a capacitive touch screen developed by E.A. Johnson at the Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern, UK. The inventor briefly described his work in a short article published in 1967
6,979,587 & 6,221,686: Derivative of the analog sensor made by Karl Ferdinand Braun in 1897
I have no idea what patent 7,733,368 even begins to describe.
So these patents are invalid from the get go. They are simply the next logical step when moving to more efficient hardware. Even then the patent is only supposed to have a life of seven years. Only two fall with in this frame. The earlier patents should have been release to the public domain. But alas we lock up our knowledge behind silly lawsuits so we only have to ever have one slightly intelligent idea, then live off of it for the rest of our and our children's lives. That is what copyright and patents are all about. The way to make sure that MY pocket is lined comfortably forever all because I had an idea, even if that idea was to steal credit from some one else and claim it as my own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Lawyers
Professional courtesy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Lawyers
The lawyers have their hands in the own pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Lawyers
A good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and disallow software/business patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Ventures is just another branch of organized crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll assume your interest in the brand is fairly casual, since you called it Cannon and not Canon. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
translation: whenever a large firm is asked to pay for their lunch
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay”. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bias
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick, the drivel monger
So, you think IV just files suits willy-nilly with no care for the cost of suit? And, you think that what a patent covers is defined by its title rather than the claims of the patent? You may hope your drivel encites people against IV, but you are really just an embarassment (your ass is, 'em, bared for all to see), a panderer to emotional imaginers who operate independent of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of Masnicks Clients (or one he'll try to shake down with this Snarky Fluff) is Nikon
You critique such a suit by the claims(you know this of course but you're hoping your peanut gallery still does not have a clue). Not the title of the Patent!
What claims are asserted in the suit?
Why are these claims not a valid basis for infringement?
If you know tell us.
If you don't know write about something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nikon p500 and Nikon P500
The camera is great for the casual photographer as it’s packed full of useful features that can make it a lot easier to take simple shot.The Nikon p500 camera is a coolpix camera.It is easy to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]