Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#11

Post by throwawaykf05 »

easytiger wrote: post #9
SixSigma wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken at face value : Bluetooth 2 is infringing - this version of the Bluetooth Core Specification was released in 2004. > The patents relate to compatibility between different types of modems, and connect to a string of applications going back to 1997 ergo > these guys had their patent before bluetooth [2]

From reading some of US8023580 (utter horrid thing to read). They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Indeed I've read a lot of patents but this one is so inscrutable one could prob use it to claim against rocket technology and a jury wouldn't blink. Getting a jury of people to understand this stuff is ridiculous. > He said he appreciates the fact that Rem…

> They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way.

Just so we know, could you point out the relevant portions claiming that?

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#12

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #8

Sigh, par for the course for any patent-related reporting on Ars. 1. The headline is pure clickbait, and is obvious from the article itself. From a quick glance, the patents concern a specific feature of Bluetooth 2.0 that enable selecting different modulation schemes, one with a higher data rate, based on a header. Whether that's novel or non-obvious depends on the prior art, which isn't discussed in TFA. In any cas…

[deleted]

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#13

Post by forthefuture »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #8

Sigh, par for the course for any patent-related reporting on Ars. 1. The headline is pure clickbait, and is obvious from the article itself. From a quick glance, the patents concern a specific feature of Bluetooth 2.0 that enable selecting different modulation schemes, one with a higher data rate, based on a header. Whether that's novel or non-obvious depends on the prior art, which isn't discussed in TFA. In any cas…

2. I think generally if you want to use your patent you call people and offer them the use of your technology (there must be some standard business practices for this). Then at least you can be reasonable that you claim they stole it from you. Doing nothing until someone else figures out the same thing and then saying they owe you is just unreasonable. I don't know the specifics of this case but that's how I'd classify a patent troll vs someone who did their best to improve the world with an invention.

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#14

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

whizzkid wrote: post #2

So what these guys are doing is sitting on their chairs, and trying to get money from people/companies that produce something? Not that I am a fan of Samsung or anything, but this feels really wrong. Can't this be stopped? I would understand if these guys had their patent before bluetooth, this is just plain stupid that they can earn money from it, isn't it ?

"So what these guys are doing is sitting on their chairs, and trying to get money from people/companies that produce something?"

How's this different than any other sort of capitalist?

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#15

Post by throwawaykf05 »

forthefuture wrote: post #13
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #8

Sigh, par for the course for any patent-related reporting on Ars. 1. The headline is pure clickbait, and is obvious from the article itself. From a quick glance, the patents concern a specific feature of Bluetooth 2.0 that enable selecting different modulation schemes, one with a higher data rate, based on a header. Whether that's novel or non-obvious depends on the prior art, which isn't discussed in TFA. In any cas…

2. I think generally if you want to use your patent you call people and offer them the use of your technology (there must be some standard business practices for this). Then at least you can be reasonable that you claim they stole it from you. Doing nothing until someone else figures out the same thing and then saying they owe you is just unreasonable. I don't know the specifics of this case but that's how I'd classi…

And that's how licensing usually worked, whether you were a practicing entity or not. Lawsuits typically only happened if negotiations broke down, because they are expensive and/or risky for both sides. This may or may not have happened in this case, as TFA does not mention it.

However, licensing is risky these days. The Medimmune v Genentech decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedImmune,_Inc._v._Genentech,_I...) significantly changed the calculus of licensing negotiations. Essentially, it enabled potential and current licensees to preemptively sue the licensor for "Declaratory Judgment". This is bad for licensors because 1) any tentative approach for licensing can blow up in their face, and 2) if it does, the licensor will have to expend considerable resources fighting a lawsuit they didn't want, 3) in a venue that then becomes wherever the DJ is filed, which may be unfavorable to the licensor for many reasons, such as not being EDTexas.

Ok, I was just picking on EDTexas (Delaware is just as common), but the venue matters for many reasons, including the state of the docket, local laws and the primary political leanings (and other biases) of the judges and jury pool. As a simplified example, you don't want to sue an automotive company in Detroit. Forum-shopping is something that should not exist, but is an unfortunate reality of the current system. My personal belief is we should do away with jury trials entirely for patent cases.

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#17

Post by SixSigma »

easytiger wrote: post #9
SixSigma wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken at face value : Bluetooth 2 is infringing - this version of the Bluetooth Core Specification was released in 2004. > The patents relate to compatibility between different types of modems, and connect to a string of applications going back to 1997 ergo > these guys had their patent before bluetooth [2]

From reading some of US8023580 (utter horrid thing to read). They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Indeed I've read a lot of patents but this one is so inscrutable one could prob use it to claim against rocket technology and a jury wouldn't blink. Getting a jury of people to understand this stuff is ridiculous. > He said he appreciates the fact that Rem…

From the snippet in the OP it just seems to be a patent on in-band signalling.

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#18

Post by wingerlang »

I hear about these patent trolls a lot but I never really got an understanding of what kind of people and companies these are.

First of all, I know they are scummy and yada yada.

But they must be very smart, setting up shell companies and having deep (?) knowledge of the various tech stuff they are pursuing, it's not within the average persons knowledge to do things like these.

How do they get the patents? Do they validly have patents, 100% generic or not, before something similar comes up. Or do they somehow "craft" it towards the victim.

Is there some known person who is a patent troll?

Is it knowlegable normal people workin in the scene while doing these things "behind" the scenes or is it some proper company/office that delegates stuff to their "shells"? It must require a huge amount of work to fight these mega corporations, even if they give up quickly.

I find them faschinating in the same way as any high level scam artist since it requires some finess.

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#19

Post by xgbi »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #11
easytiger wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reading some of US8023580 (utter horrid thing to read). They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Indeed I've read a lot of patents but this one is so inscrutable one could prob use it to claim against rocket technology and a jury wouldn't blink. Getting a jury of people to understand this stuff is ridiculous. > He said he appreciates the fact that Rem…

> They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Just so we know, could you point out the relevant portions claiming that?

Well, just read the synopsis:

>A device may be capable of communicating using at least two type types of modulation methods. The device may include a transceiver capable of acting as a master according to a master/slave relationship in which communication from a slave to a master occurs in response to communication from the master to the slave. The master transceiver may send transmissions discrete transmissions structured with a first portion and a payload portion. Information in the first portion may be modulated according to a first modulation method and indicate an impending change to a second modulation method, which is used for transmitting the payload portion.

This could be valid for any form of communication with more than one modulation system (Wifi, BT, DVB television, any recent communication system). I'm pretty sure that the modulation of the monitoring systems in a rocket will switch between transmission modes when the rocket reaches some upper layers of the atmosphere.

Re: Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

#20

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

easytiger wrote: post #9
SixSigma wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken at face value : Bluetooth 2 is infringing - this version of the Bluetooth Core Specification was released in 2004. > The patents relate to compatibility between different types of modems, and connect to a string of applications going back to 1997 ergo > these guys had their patent before bluetooth [2]

From reading some of US8023580 (utter horrid thing to read). They have basically laid claim to the mechanism of any electronic device that communicates in any way. Indeed I've read a lot of patents but this one is so inscrutable one could prob use it to claim against rocket technology and a jury wouldn't blink. Getting a jury of people to understand this stuff is ridiculous. > He said he appreciates the fact that Rem…

>Because the old fool is being paid to shut up and do as he's told.

Without respect to Bremer, that's true for any independent patent holder, and even for most small businesses. Bringing or defending a patent infringement suit is an expensive and risky prospect. It's hard to argue that a patent is particularly useful for anyone who doesn't have a big pile of cash they feel like gambling with.

Post reply on HN