Slashdot Log In
Firm Seeks To Ban Mobile Companies' Imports To US
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Jan 16, 2009 08:01 PM
from the even-silly-patent-claims-are-bigger-in-texas dept.
from the even-silly-patent-claims-are-bigger-in-texas dept.
snydeq writes "Texas-based Saxon Innovations has filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission to bar six companies — including Research in Motion, Palm, and Nokia — from importing handheld devices into the US. At issue are three patents that Saxon purchased in July 2007; a patent for keypad monitor with keypad activity-based activation; a patent for an apparatus and method for disabling interrupt marks in processors or the like; and a patent for a device and method for interprocessor communication by using mailboxes owned by processor devices. Saxon, with five employees, purchased about 180 US patents formerly owned by Advanced Micro Devices or Legerity in 2007, according to its ITC complaint."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't innovate, litigate!
Re:You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)
And if you can't litigate, fumigate!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"And if you can't litigate, fumigate!"
And if you can't fumigate, Watergate!
And if you can't Watergate, fornicate!
And if you can't fornicate, read Slashdot!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you can't read slashdot, complain that ubuntu won't run MS Word so then you can't get a degree?
Re:You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't fumigate, masturbate... and it seems that's exactly what they're doing. Bloody wankers.
Parent
Re:You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)
Bloody? That's gotta be pretty furious then.
Parent
And if you litigate.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Say hello to my LITTLE FRIEND! /funny
Seriously, these suits are approaching a level of craziness that someone, somewhere, at some time will simply not retain counsel, and will instead just kill the IP firm's principals, lawyers, etc. Or spawn a "take care of it" industry that will indeed "take care" of the "problem" for under 10% of the amount at stake.
When billions of dollars are at stake, I'd never put anything past a CEO. When billions of tax revenues are at stake even the FBI will overlook a small loc
Very nice! (Score:4, Interesting)
As if the frakin' telecommunications industry in this country wasn't crap enough compared to Europe and Asia.
Way to go.
Re:You are kidding. right? (Score:4, Insightful)
EU could not handle a 9/11 in their system.
Neither could the USA it seems.
Parent
Litigation is expensive (Score:5, Informative)
...but filing ITC complaints is cheap.
The whole point here is that enforcing these patents against all of those companies is an expensive proposition with no guarantee of returns. However, they can get Free Money by extorting those companies to pay them royalties, backed up by the threat of an import ban from the ITC, and even if their complaint is rejected, they've spent practically nothing.
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?
They buy an idea, then sit on it. No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part). Bad for consumers, bad for other businesses. Boo!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.
When was the last time Apple based a product on what their lawyers told them? Seriously. Apple has a long and flagrant history of violating 'intellectual property' laws starting with name of the company itself. Anybody remember the 'sosueme' audio file?
Parent
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:5, Informative)
You must mean Sosumi. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, Apple Computer wasn't violating IP law when adding sound capabilities to their operating system, they were violating contract law when they violated the details of their settlement with Apple Records. At least, arguably. And given that computers making music was utterly inevitable and that the argument that there would be confusion between Apple Computer and Apple Records was Just. Fucking. Stupid., it's hard to argue that they really did anything wrong there. My (admittedly limited) understanding of trademark law is that you can't create a trademark which is substantially similar if it will cause confusion. My also-limited understanding of this case is that Apple Records abused the system in the hopes of making some free money.
Parent
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:4, Informative)
The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard because Steve Jobs hates buttons.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard because Steve Jobs hates people.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's way past time for patent reform, these patent trolls are way out of hand.
Why is this not happening? Seems like the companies who actually produce stuff have a major economic interest in this, that usually translates into lobbyists and shortly, political action. Seems like the only time big buisness doesn't get it's way on issues like this is when there's another big buisness interest opposing it.
What exactly is keeping patent law open to trolling like this? Big powerful patent troll association I've never heard of? Or is it more that the buisnesses hurt by abuses don't have
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?
No, because some times sitting on an idea to get another company to pay for it is a legitimate practice.
Let's say I create Startup Inc, and design a new type of lithography. I don't have the money to build a fab or anything, so I show the tech to Intel and offer to let them use it in exchange for royalties. Under your system they could say no, use it anyway, and I wouldn't be able to sue, because I don't have an actual product.
Patent trolls suck, and there should be a way to stop them through litigation, but we have to be sure that we don't kill off real innovators in the process.
Parent
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
"Let's say I create Startup Inc, and design a new type of lithography. I don't have the money to build a fab or anything, so I show the tech to Intel and offer to let them use it in exchange for royalties."
In order for you to convince Intel you show them a prototype. *Then* you have a working example covering your patent. If you don't have even a prototype then all you have is an idea and ideas shouldn't be subjected to patents.
"Patent trolls suck, and there should be a way to stop them through litigation, but we have to be sure that we don't kill off real innovators in the process."
Two words: Trade Secrets.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They buy an idea, then sit on it. No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part). Bad for consumers, bad for other businesses. Boo!
Let's step back a bit here though. "no efforts on their part" is not exactly true. They have capital in the matter. They are investing in those patents, presumably because they think the idea has merit -- but they are taking the risk that it does not. They do not "line their pockets" without the patent having some form of merit.
The patents came from somewhere, their original creators presumably got compensated and therefore had more incentive to patent in the first case (instead of keeping their ideas a tra
Re:Litigation is expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, you haven't been keeping up. The popular M.O. is to sit on the idea until it has already become popular, THEN offer licenses. If you come out with the patent to begin with, potential licensees will just work around it. Waiting until they have built their business on it is far more profitable in the long run.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does a company that has developed, manufactured, marketed and sold an actual product benefit when years later comes around and says "Nope, you can't keep selling that until you license your idea from us."
Patents have their uses. An invention a person or company spends time and money researching should be protected to a degree. IFF it is original and non obvious - especially if there is an actual product you're selling incorporating this patent.
However, filing a patent for every damn thing you can think
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, of course they offer licenses, AFTER they sit.
If they offered licenses up-front it wouldn't be a scam. They'd have to have a useful tech and people would see that and pay to use it, new products would be made, everyone WOULD benefit.
But in the patent-troll scenario they obtain a patent on a useless piece of tech, not something nobody wants, but something so simple everyone independently invents it, and they wait until everyone does when they suddenly "offer" licenses. If, by offer, you mean threaten to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you didn't build a prototype then you didn't know whether your process would actually work. If you didn't know whether it would work then you didn't really invent anything. And if you didn't really invent anything then you didn't deserve a patent anyway!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
History seems to hint that rather than foster innnovation, religion retards it. Here's an article summary that suggests sectarian fighting between Jews, Christians and Muslim [osu.edu] Alexandrians were the last nail in the coffin for the Library - which had fostered people like Heron, the inventor of the steam engine (around 50 BC) [wikipedia.org].
It just makes me want to scream when I think that we lost 1500+ friggin years...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Loser pays won't work unless you adjust for the financial load.
The RIAA can sue a college student and spend a million dollars, let's say 1000 times more than the student has, and easily afford to pay this if they lose. The student can only afford maybe $100 to actually pursue justice and could never hope the pay the RIAA legal team's lunch bill if he lost.
But we all know the court system is worthless anyways because the party with the most money wins - even if they don't "win" you die a pauper, likely with
Re: (Score:2)
The other benefit of ITC proceedings is they are very, very fast. I don't see that a trial date is set yet, but I would expect to see this go to trial around August or September.
But don't make the mistake of thinking ITC proceedings are cheap. Basically, you're paying much of the cost of a district court proceeding, but all in a compressed time period. So don't expect this to be something like the NTP case. You should expect to see something (most likely a settlement---that's what always happens anym
Let me guess .. (Score:2)
Saxon, with five employees
All IP lawyers, no doubt. Well, okay, maybe four and a secretary.
patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what is wrong with the patent process. You have a "company" of only FIVE people, who could potentially stop any technology that might "infringe" on these obscure patents.
Necessity is the mother of invention. -- Aesop
Patents are the motherfucker of necessity. -- Me
Until.... (Score:3, Funny)
Just until they threaten a company with large revenues run as a mob front and their office is suddenly visited by Luca Brasi and Furio....
The law needs to be changed (Score:2)
Change the law so that they cant go to the ITC and ask for an import ban, they instead need to go to the courts and ask for an injunction. If they have to go to the courts, they presumably have to at least demonstrate something vaguely resembling evidence to back up their patent claims.
IP - Imaginary Property (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Moreover, the obviousness test should be much more stringent: if I can easily recreate the thing by just looking at it, then it isn't patentable. Only stuff that can exist as trade secrets (that is, can't be easily figured out by studying the item) should be patentable. Which is far closer to the original intent of the patent system.
This is bad for the US... in the long run. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. (Score:5, Insightful)
The costs will then be passed on to the US consumer. The end result is a private taxation system where every consumer and every business effectively pays a "high tech" tax on every high tech device purchased and every service used. And the money just disappears into the pockets of the patent speculators ... with no net return to businesses, consumers, or even to the people who created the inventions in the first place.
Parent
I guess it's clear why AMD sold them... (Score:5, Informative)
...because they're crap. I looked at the first patent and the first few claims looked suspiciously like the (certainly not novel) idea of connecting up a keyboard matrix in such a way that pressing a key triggers an interrupt on the row lines, which triggers a wake-up event and a keyboard scan. I couldn't tell about the later claims. Then I looked at the interrupt mask patent
You've got to be kidding me. AMD patented a common interrupt mask circuit... in 1994? Apparently it isn't only with respect to software that the patent office is out of touch.
Patents and the monkeys typing Shakespear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Im thinkin the real weight of the patent system isnt even touched by major corps. Individual and small group/investment firm patent companys like Eolas looking for that ONE patent to go home on, by sheer numbers, probably dwarf the IBM and MS's of the world.. regardless..
By sheer brute force attack on common technology methods, conduits, hardware and the like they create a "monkeys typing Shakespear" effect, not with letters, but with common terms and principles.
At the rate the monkeys are being added, soon no one should be able to do anything without everyones approval.
Tada...
Re:Patents and the monkeys typing Shakespear... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Im thinkin the real weight of the patent system isnt even touched by major corps. Individual and small group/investment firm patent companys like Eolas looking for that ONE patent to go home on, by sheer numbers, probably dwarf the IBM and MS's of the world.. regardless.."
I really don't know, but it doesn't matter. The core of the bussines here is not having "that ONE patent" but having that one patent WITHOUT an industry backing it up. Big corps have used patents as deterrent weapons against their rivals for decades now but the problem here is not a little tech company with the "ONE patent": as long as they produce something, they are probably in violation of dozens of patents belonging to the very ones they want to license to, so they will be forced into a mutual agreement; if the case is between two big corps they have such a big patent arsenal that they again are forced to cooperate or face an assured mutual destruction scenario. But lawyer-based firms don't produce anything so they are immune to the usual patent counterattack which has made the patent system flaws more obvious.
Parent
Domestic Industry? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the lesson here is that the system was designed with some basic assumptions about the "anybody" who would be running it, but the Founding Fathers were not aware that The Enlightenment would be just a temporary aberration.
One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX (Score:4, Informative)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ding ding ding
I'm from Texas and I think every judge in that district should be removed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would really dearly love to see a lot of tech companies start refusing to ship products to east Texas, and start refusing to do distribution deals to stores there. Take every single useful gadget off their market with an industry boycott, and tell 'em that they can have their shiny gizmos back when they stop producing ludicrous patent decisions.
You should be cheering this. Really. (Score:3, Insightful)
You worked out yet why your economy is in the crapper?
Imports. And outsourcing all your manufacturing to China.
Quickest solution (Score:3, Interesting)
patents should be non-transferable (Score:3, Interesting)
Either that or they should be treated as real property and taxed, like real estate is taxed in most states. Then annual taxes would be assessed to patent holder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can do much better than that. Honeywell Level 66 mainframes had mailboxes in their CPUs to talk to the I/O processors. This dates back to at least 1975, when I first encountered them. Probably true for Multics mainframes from the '60s too.