Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Hardware

Bluetooth Lawsuit 87

Krish writes "The Seattle Times reports that a local Washington state group is suing cellphone makers for patent infringement on bluetooth devices. Research conducted by a University of Washington undergraduate more than a decade ago has become the subject of a lawsuit filed against some of the largest cellphone manufacturers in the world. The suit claims that consumer electronics giant Matsushita and its Panasonic unit, as well as Samsung and Nokia, are infringing on four patents sold under the 'Bluetooth' name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bluetooth Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04, 2007 @12:22AM (#17454288)
    If it's a legitimate complaint and the companies ARE infringing on the patents then how is it scamming?
  • by ILuvRamen ( 1026668 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @12:29AM (#17454362)
    WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS?! They wait until the company is huge and has tons of money THEN sue them because they can make the most money off it, aka scamming. DUH, dozens of people have tried to get away with that. Remember Ebay's buy it now option? Oh yeah, I'm sure they just realized Ebay was using it like 4 years later. More like they waited and waited saying "they're not quite rich enough yet" then sued them. It's only a matter of time before someone jumps up and says "Hey, I patented a technique for waiting until an infringing company is rich then suing them" and gets all the scammers' money.
  • Re:Stupid Patents (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rainwater ( 530678 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @12:32AM (#17454380)
    These patents in question are certainly not simple. Perhaps you should try reading them? Whether or not they infringe is a different story.
  • by argoff ( 142580 ) * on Thursday January 04, 2007 @12:35AM (#17454412)
    If I recall, the US govt paid Qualcomm over 100 million dollars to do R&D on RF technology for military communications. Then just as the technology started to become developed in the market, they patented the shit out of everything to do with CDMA. I always thought that was sort of unfair, after all my tax money paid for that R&D, and even if it didn't - it seemed like there was incentive was already out and that it was going to be invented anyhow,
  • Re:the patent (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chillax137 ( 612431 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @01:00AM (#17454630) Homepage
    They are not filing suit against Bluetooth. UW is filing suit against chipmakers that are using the Bluetooth protocol. There is something in the design of these chips (created by third parties) that they are claiming is violating their patent.
  • Re:Stupid Patents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @01:21AM (#17454774) Journal
    When you say "not simple" do you mean "written in dense legalese which would be useless for recreating the 'invention'" or "an invention that is not stupidly obvious"?

    Just wondering; seemed kinda vague :]
  • by ILuvRamen ( 1026668 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @01:35AM (#17454828)
    oh that is such a fraudlent scheme to make a quick profit. It's one thing to realize some small company on the other side of the country is using a rare technology that you invented and patented but it's another to live in the US, have studied and made breakthroughs in the technology, and then not know for years that cell phones used blinking lights for bluetooth. You'd have to have never watched TV, never seen anyone use a cell phone for that, never own a cell phone yourself, never go to a place where the sell cell phones, and never used a lot of the internet. So as soon as being in a coma and desert islands are ruled out, the person ignored it on purpose until now.
  • by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @02:46AM (#17455172)
    If I recall, the US govt paid Qualcomm over 100 million dollars to do R&D on RF technology for military communications.

    If Qualcomm did the R&D work as part of an open bid contract to develop a product or provide service to the government AND the product or service was indeed provided on time and per the terms of the agreement then I am not against Qualcomm profiting from their work on the contract in future dealings. However, if this money was given as a grant or the product or service was NOT delivered as per the terms of the agreement then Qualcomm has some explaining to do.

    Then just as the technology started to become developed in the market, they patented the shit out of everything to do with CDMA.

    If the entire arrangement was above board (which it probably was not) then there is no problem with this, especially if Qualcomm had language in the contract stating that they had the right to patent any technology that came out of the research (probably in return for granting a perpetual license to the government). However, I am generally against funding research projects with public money (there are too many projects that would want funding) and especially when the project could feasibly be funded with private investment. This is the reason why I voted AGAINST the stem cell research bonds here in California. If the investors feel so poorly about an opportunity that they do not want to risk their own money then why should the public be forced to take that risk? It is also the case, as you have already said, that if the risk DOES pay off then the public gets screwed out of their rightful return on the investment. The same thing goes for airline bailouts and most other forms of corporate charity. If the taxpayers do not share in the rewards then why should we share in the pain when these business ventures fail?

    I always thought that was sort of unfair, after all my tax money paid for that R&D, and even if it didn't - it seemed like there was incentive was already out and that it was going to be invented anyhow.

    It is unfair and if something is really that worthwhile then there usually is enough incentive already out there for private investment to develop it. The few projects that are left (i.e. stem cell research, farm products research, and other bogus or risky projects funded by taxpayers) are usually lemons or very risky (junk bond type investments with high risks and long payoff horizons) and the public gets stuck holding the bag.
  • by modecx ( 130548 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @05:36AM (#17455818)
    This is not fraud as the GP asserts, this is true. However, I think this deal closely mirrors an extortion scheme, as do many other patent cases. Here we have an IEEE standard that is supported by entire industries, and the firm holding the universities' patents has decided to wait nearly a decade after devices using "their" technology have proliferated around the world, with shipments in the millions. You don't think they could have brought this little snag up a little sooner? Face it, they were waiting for the phenomenon to snowball, just so they could do precisely what they're trying to do now--trying to rake in the millions, with little to no effort spent on actually developing a product--which is a difficult and risky venture.

    The fact this sort of bullying is legal does not make it right. In this field, one would need a fleet of patent lawyers to determine if one's invention is unique and non-obvious, and even then, chances are that your lawyer armada isn't exactly right on everything, because patents are purposefully written to obfuscate their meanings and expand their scope. In this way, the system that was designed to promote development of useful technologies has been hobbled by its own virtues. It *should* be illegal to intimidate people with torpedo tactics like this. They're exploiting the system, and the acceptance of these practices have fucked the system over.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04, 2007 @10:20AM (#17457482)
    This is the reason why I voted AGAINST the stem cell research bonds here in California. If the investors feel so poorly about an opportunity that they do not want to risk their own money then why should the public be forced to take that risk?

    Because some things (including quality of life) should not have a price. Companies exist to make money, and that's all there is to it. Some research fields should be protected from capitalism because a lack of profitability does not mean a lack of virtuousness.

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...