Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Patents Portables United States Hardware Your Rights Online

Firm Seeks To Ban Mobile Companies' Imports To US 137

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firm Seeks To Ban Mobile Companies' Imports To US

Comments Filter:
  • Very nice! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <> on Friday January 16, 2009 @09:05PM (#26491887) Homepage

    As if the frakin' telecommunications industry in this country wasn't crap enough compared to Europe and Asia.

    Way to go.

  • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) * on Friday January 16, 2009 @09:23PM (#26492065) Homepage
    Don't be too sure that nobody profits from these sorts of things.

    I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.
  • by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Friday January 16, 2009 @09:46PM (#26492279)
    If the US patent system diverges far enough from the global average rights of patents then the US market will become too expensive to both develop for and enter into. Of course the US market is a major one but if the worldwide market share is bigger it means that the risks in the US (submarine patents etc) are not worth spending your money on primarily. So it will protect the US companies on their home turf. But multinational companpanies, even US based, will be looking at the US as a secondary market because of the risks.
  • by philspear ( 1142299 ) on Friday January 16, 2009 @09:53PM (#26492325)

    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 the imagination to come up with a way to throw the bathwater out while keeping the baby (in this case, defending their own products against patent infringements)? Seems like one possible solution has been tossed around here forever and has just been mentioned: if you don't have a product that uses your patent, you can't defend it.

    There are going to be problems with such legislation that will need to be worked out, but that's never stopped them before.

  • Quickest solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yabba-dabba-do ( 948536 ) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @02:07AM (#26494217)
    Is for RIM to disable Obama's phone. "Sorry, when the patent mess is cleaned up, we'll turn it back on."
  • by ubernostrum ( 219442 ) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @03:09AM (#26494587) Homepage

    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.

  • by temcat ( 873475 ) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @08:16AM (#26495937)

    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.

  • by WNight ( 23683 ) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @10:01AM (#26496495) Homepage

    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 the trial still going sixty years later.

    So we fix both problems at once by pooling legal funds - the college student pays his $100, the RIAA pays as much as they wish ($1M for instance), and each gets $500,050 to spend.

    The goal, to society, is for a trial to discover truth and produce justice. To let any side bully the other, or snow it under with paperwork, only perverts that.

  • by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Saturday January 17, 2009 @03:07PM (#26498983) Journal
    pretty simple, companies should not sell and buy patents!

    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.

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus