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

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

strttn wrote: post #4

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 ?

You could argue that companies like Rembrandt are the only way that indie patent holders can hope to compete with the likes of Samsung. Unfortunately the patent game appears to usually be one that is won by whoever has the largest legal budget. It costs huge amounts to create, file and protect patents and any errors will mean that a patent is worthless once the opposition's lawyers get stuck into it. Large companies…

Post by throwawaykf05 » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 2:05 PM UTC

xgbi wrote: post #19

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 stru…

Post by throwawaykf05 » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

chrsw wrote: post #16

If companies spent more time on their Bluetooth stack implementations and less money on the legal wrangling, BT wouldn't be so shitty.

Post by bovermyer » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #24

TorKlingberg wrote: post #3

The telecom industry is unfortunately very patent heavy. It holds back startups from entering, and the standardization groups become a game of trying to push in things covered by your own patents while dodging others.

I used to work in wireless R&D (at a startup). It's frightfully expensive, and we would have never be able to do a whole stack with original technology, so we licensed and built on top of WiMAX. I'm not sure why we should've been allowed to build on all that technology for free. Patents are a huge boon to standardization in capital-intensive industries like that. Getting your patent in the spec is what creates the in…

Post by msandford » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 2:42 PM UTC

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #23

xgbi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stru…

1. What you quoted itself a far cry from "any electronic device that communicates in any way", a statement that mischaracterizes the patent as much as the title of TFA does the actual claim. Note that it says the header may be modulated using one method whereas the payload another depending on the header. Are you sure this applies to any of those you mentioned? (Except Bluetooth of course, as it was just found to inf…