LG Asks US Gov't To Block Import Of All PS3s Over Patent Infringement

from the but-of-course dept

If Sony can't kill off interest in the PS3 by playing whac-a-mole with jailbreak code, perhaps it can get some assistance from the US government. It appears that LG, using the ITC loophole is asking the International Trade Commission to block the import of PS3s into the US for supposedly violating four of its patents.

The patents in question:

• 7,701,835: Recording medium having data structure for managing reproduction of data streams recorded thereon and recording and reproducing methods and apparatuses
• 7,577,080: Recording medium with a linking area thereon and apparatus and methods for forming recording, and reproducing the recording medium
• 7,619,961: Read-only recording medium and reproducing method thereof
• 7,756,398: Recording medium and method and apparatus for reproducing text subtitle stream for updating palette information

Ah, innovation in the 21st century. It's all about figuring out what gov't-supported barriers you can put up to force your competitors to just hand over cash.

Filed Under: itc, patents, ps3
Companies: lg, sony

NTP Keeps On Making The Case For Patent Reform As It Sues More Companies

from the milking-it dept

NTP, a patent holding firm that is really just a bunch of lawyers with incredibly broad and questionable patents, is at it again. As you probably know, NTP was locked in a long and contentious patent fight with RIM over NTP's claimed patents covering the concept of mobile email. Even as the US Patent Office was telling the world that NTP's patents almost certainly weren't valid, pressure from investors (and the judge in the case who refused to wait for the Patent Office's final rejection of the patents) resulted in RIM settling the case for $612.5 million. For RIM, it became something of a no brainer. Even though its legal position was strong, its investors were killing the company over the uncertainty (there were threats that the judge could issue an injunction shutting down the entire Blackberry network). Settling the case helped RIM's stock price jump up (increasing its market cap more than the cost of the settlement).

But, from a legal perspective, the lawsuit and the end result became the centerpiece of attention for efforts at patent reform. While I still think that the patent reform process in Congress has been misguided and the end result probably a lot more damaging than helpful, many of the politicians involved will point to the RIM-NTP case as evidence of the problems with the patent system. You might think, then, that NTP's investors might sit back and enjoy the spoils of the RIM settlement, but the company quickly went back out and sued all the major mobile operators in the US for violating its patents. However, judges in those other suits said (unlike the judge in the RIM case) that those trials should wait until the Patent Office has made a final decision on the validity of NTP's ridiculously overbroad patents.

However, NTP is not waiting around. It's now suing again. This time, rather than the mobile operators, it's going after device makers and platform vendors, suing Apple, Google, Microsoft, HTC, LG and Motorola. Basically, it appears that NTP has decided that if anyone does email on a phone, they have to pay NTP.

There might not be a better example of how incredibly screwed up the patent system is than this. NTP was involved in an attempt to do mobile email ages ago (and it wasn't the first actually... but NTP paid off some folks who had prior art). The idea itself wasn't new or all that innovative, and the timing was off, so NTP failed. In a functioning free market, that's a good thing. If a company can't execute, it should fail. Unfortunately, thanks to a ridiculously overbroad patent award, NTP has been able to live on as a bunch of lawyers suing any company that does figure out how to execute.

Perhaps the only good thing coming out of this is that it may help draw more attention to just how broken the patent system is.

Filed Under: email, mobile phones, patent reform, patents
Companies: apple, google, htc, lg, microsoft, motorola, ntp, rim

LG Patent Lawsuit Backfires, As It Ends Up On The Hook For Infringement

from the nuclear-war dept

We've seen this happen quite a few times: when a company files a patent infringement lawsuit against another operating company, patent nuclear war breaks out, with the sued coming turning around suing the original company back for patent infringement. These sorts of "mutually assured destruction" scenarios are often what keep big patent battles in check. But, in this latest case, sent in by a bunch of you, it looks like the first strike completely failed, while the retaliation hit hard. It started with LG filing a lawsuit against AU Optronics (AUO), claiming patent infringement. AUO, in turn, sued LG for patent infringement of its own patents. The end result? The court found that LG infringed on AUO's patents, but AUO did not infringe on LG's patents. Perhaps LG will be a bit more careful before filing patent lawsuits in the future. Now AUO is seeking an injunction against LG's displays, and LG will likely have to pay out a substantial sum to AUO.

Filed Under: displays, patents
Companies: auo, lg

Bunch Of Companies Sued Over Encryption Patents

from the but-of-course dept

Another day, another story of a company no one's heard of who seems to produce nothing but patents, filing a lawsuit against a ton of companies in East Texas (of course). This one, sent in by the Bored SysAdmin, involves a company called The Pacid Group, suing Asus, Samsung, Sony, Sony Ericsson, Fujitsu, LG, Gigabyte, GBT, MSI, Motorola, Research in Motion, Nikon, Microsoft, Nintendo, HTC and Palm, claiming that they all violate two of its patents (5,963,646 and 6,049,612) on encryption. While it's often difficult to find any information on the no name companies who sue big companies for patent infringement, at least The Pacid Group has a website, where it clearly shows the company's only products: patents.

As we've seen in other similar lawsuits, the company appears to think that pretty much every bit of modern technology violates its patents. According to the lawsuit, all of the following types of products may violate these patents: laptops, mobile phones, printers, routers, digital cameras, Blu-ray disk players, gaming devices, wireless adapters and portable media players. Now, sure, you could make the claim that all of these companies found these patents from a company no one had heard of, and decided to "copy" the idea into their product. Or, the fact that this basic idea appears in so many places might lead you to conclude that the idea was the natural progression of the technology and obvious to those skilled in the art, and thus not deserving of a patent. But that would make sense.

Filed Under: encryption, patents
Companies: asus, fujitsu, gbt, gigabyte, htc, lg, microsoft, motorola, msi, nikon, nintendo, palm, rim, samsung, sony, sony ericsson

Patent Lawsuit So Bogus That The Judge Ordered Sanctions And Attorney's Fees Paid

from the about-time dept

There are an awful lot of bogus patent lawsuits out there, but even when the lawsuits are tossed out it's very, very rare for a judge to order the plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendants. However, in Illinois it just happened. Joe Mullin has the story of a patent that was quite clearly limited to an infrared camera linked to a GPS system. The patent examiner required the inventor to include the word "infrared" before declaring the patent acceptable and non-obvious. Yet, that didn't stop the patent holder from suing LG, Pantech and Disney for the Disney mobile phone service that let parents track where their kids were. The product was a huge commercial failure, but those are three big companies worth suing for infringement.

However, the judge noted, sternly, that the patent holder and the law firm that was handling the case (which had also worked on the patent) clearly decided to ignore what the patent actually said about it being for infrared cameras. This practice is more common than it should be. Even when claims are written to be narrowly focused, there's always some wiggle room, and many patent holders bring lawsuits on technologies that are pretty far from what's in the claims -- usually hoping that the accused will settle rather than take the issue to court. In this case, though, the judge pointed out that it was clearly a frivolous lawsuit, and ordered the defendants get reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. If this happened more often, maybe we'd see fewer ridiculous patent lawsuits.

Filed Under: attorney's fees, cameras, frivolous, gps, infrared, patents
Companies: disney, lg, pantech

If That's Price Fixing, You're Doing It Wrong

from the price-fixing-means-prices-don't-drop... dept

There was plenty of news coverage this week of the $585 million in criminal fines against Sharp, LG and Chunghwa for price fixing on LCD displays. LG is paying the largest share at $400 million -- though, in the interest of disclosure, I should note that I'm writing this post using an LG LCD monitor that I got for quite a good price a few months back. And that brings up an issue I haven't seen addressed anywhere, other than by Adam Theirer: if this was price fixing, the companies were doing it wrong. Prices on LCDs were sliding very quickly, and it while there may have been some collusion among these three providers, it didn't seem to do much good. That's partly because there were plenty of other providers in the market, so any attempt at collusion was rather ineffective in stopping the rapid decline in prices. Sure, collusion is a bad thing, but we see this over and over again in antitrust enforcement: regulators keep punishing certain activities without bothering to see if they actually do anything to harm consumers.

Filed Under: lcd, price fixing
Companies: chunghwa, lg, sharp

Klausner Continues To Sue Everyone Over Visual Voicemail Patent

from the this-is-innovation? dept

You may recall stories involving a small patent holding firm called Klausner Technologies, which claims to hold patents on the concept of "visual voicemail." It seems to have interpreted these patents pretty broadly to the point that it considers anyone who offers any graphical interface to voicemail as infringing. Over the years, that's meant lawsuits against AOL, Vonage, Apple, eBay, AT&T and others. Apparently, suing one by one was too much trouble, because Klausner has now sued another bunch of companies including Google, Verizon and Embarq. Of course, the company is playing up the fact that all those other companies it sued settled, but we've seen that game before. There's not much new here as this scenario is all too common. We have a company with an overly broad patent on a concept that was a natural obvious progression of the art, suing pretty much every company that actually innovates, thus making actual innovation more expensive.

Filed Under: patents, visual voicemail
Companies: embarq, google, klausner, lg, verizon

When All Else Fails, Sue For Patent Infringement

from the this-again? dept

We've seen it all too often over the years. After a technology company has failed to get anywhere in the market with its products, it decides to sue everyone possible for patent infringement. As has been said: Those who can, innovate. Those who can't, litigate. The latest to join the bunch is a failed multimedia device company, e.Digital, who is suing a ton of companies, claiming to hold a patent on using removable flash drives in portable devices. Seriously. It's already sued Casio, LG Electronics, Olympus, Samsung, Sanyo, Vivitar, Avid and Nikon (all in Texas, of course) and says that's just the beginning.

The patents in question are as follows:

• US5491774: Handheld record and playback device with flash memory
• US5742737: Method for recording voice messages on flash memory in a hand held recorder
• US5787445: Operating system including improved file management for use in devices utilizing flash memory as main memory
• US5839108: Flash memory file system in a handheld record and playback device
• US5842170: Method for editing in hand held recorder

To think that others weren't thinking about removable solid state storage on devices seems rather ludicrous. The real innovation in the space may have been the creation of flash memory, but to claim that using removable flash memory is an innovation worth limiting with patents just doesn't make any sense. But, once again, this shows how the patent system is being used for the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do. The company that failed in the marketplace gets to hold up those who are succeeding because they made a better product.

For additional irony, by the way, it should be remember that one of e.Digital's failed media devices looked almost identical to the iPod, and was named the "Treo 10" -- quite similar to the Treo mobile phone device. I would think that charges of "copying" would apply a lot more to that device than anyone using the fairly obvious idea of using removable flash storage in a mobile device.

Filed Under: flash memory, patents, removable flash
Companies: avid, casio, e.digital, lg, nikon, olympus, samsung, sanyo, vivitar

Supreme Court Says Patent Holders Can't Shake Down Entire Supply Chain

from the big-win dept

The Supreme Court continues to bring a bit of common sense back to the patent system. While most of the tech world was sitting around paying attention to whatever Steve Jobs has to say this morning, the really big news in the tech industry may be the Supreme Court's decision that patent holders can't shake down the entire supply chain, by forcing each level of the supply chain to also license the patent (even if they bought a product from someone who had licensed the patent).

This the LG v. Quanta case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear last fall. Basically, LG had some patents that it licensed to Intel. Intel then sold products based on those patents, which its customers used to build other products. LG demanded license fees from those customers as well, even though they bought fully licensed products from Intel. LG insisted that since its contract with Intel said that the license didn't cover any additional products, then the patents had to be relicensed by each player down the supply chain. To some extent, this question of "patent exhaustion" is similar to questions about first sale doctrine when it comes to copyright, in determining if you have a right to actually resell a product that was legally purchased. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees that patent exhaustion is an important concept.

This is yet another very important limitation on patent holders, preventing them from stifling innovation at every step of the product process, and double-, triple- and quadruple-dipping off a product based on a single use of their patented invention. Hopefully this will lead to the quick dismissal of a bunch of cases that were filed last fall against a ton of companies up and down various supply chains. A lot of patent hoarders, fearing this exact decision, tried to just sue everyone at once, hoping for quick settlements before the Supreme Court stepped in. It's great to see the Supreme Court taking such an active interest in rolling back massive abuses of the patent system. Update: The EFF has a good take on the ruling, noting some of the holes in it, suggesting that it's unfortunate the the Supreme Court wasn't as clear as it could/should have been.

Filed Under: contracts, first sale, patent exhaustion, patents, supply chain, supreme court
Companies: lg, quanta

Columbia Professor Latest To Go On The Patent Offensive

from the very-offensive dept

Over the last year or so, we've seen two disturbing trends in enforcing patents. The first, is seeing patent holders suing a bunch of companies at once rather than just one or two, as used to be standard. They do this because they fear that some type of patent reform is coming, either via Congress or the courts. So they want to get as many patent suits in as quickly as possible. The second trend is that, rather than taking patent infringement cases through the court system (which is bound by the recent precedents set by the Supreme Court that loosen patent rules), they use a loophole: taking patent infringement claims to the US International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has the authority, if it believes that infringement occurs, to block the import of infringing goods. The ITC doesn't need to pay attention to what the courts say, and doesn't need to wait for the USPTO to review a patent. It can simply decide infringement occurred and ban the import of the goods. This is, effectively, the equivalent of an injunction against the product (just the sort of thing the Supreme Court said should be used more cautiously).

A Columbia professor has now picked up on both of these trends, getting the ITC to investigate 30 companies for violating her patents on LED and laser technologies. Among the companies investigated: Sony, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Toshiba, Panasonic, Motorola, Nokia, Pioneer, and Samsung. Whether or not these patents turn out to be valid, it's a cheap tactic to use the ITC rather than going to the courts to fight this battle.

Filed Under: itc, lasers, lawsuits, leds, loophole, patents
Companies: hitachi, lg, motorola, nokia, panasonic, pioneer, samsung, sony, toshiba