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

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 in patent heavy fields all have teams of lawyers filing patents as quickly as they can and then defending them and attacking others as hard as they can. The little guy doesn't stand a chance.

Perhaps a solution could be to have government take the place of a company like Rembrandt so that independent patent filers can get the heft behind them required to support their patent.

> You could argue that companies like Rembrandt are the only way that indie patent holders can hope to compete with the likes of Samsung.

That's not correct, specifically, it's not realistic for two reasons. First, patents, when related to indie developers, are beneficial only for a small subset - specifically, the google-like ones, who build a product on a single, very specific, idea. Second, an indie developer is not in the same market as Samsung.

> Perhaps a solution could be to have government take the place of a company like Rembrandt

When it comes to patents/trolling, there are a few "shocking 1-little-tricks" ;-) which are actually simple and effective - it's just that the administration is in bed with the industry, and obviously doesn't want to hurt the interests of the latter.

Reducing the term of the patent to a reasoned amount would be one; limiting the amount of allowed applications would be another.

One thing that I'm actually wondering (because I haven't seen it discussed) is what would happen if the USPTO would be accountable for the patents it grants, that is, if it could be sued for giving patents which are later proved invalid.

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 case, it's a far cry from a claim on "owning Bluetooth".

2. The article and comments paint the plaintiff as a troll. But nobody asks, let alone bothers to answer, what somebody should do if they devise such type of an improvement to existing systems. "They are trolls because they make no products", is the argument. Well, what product would you build in this situation? Wireless communications are heavily regulated and standardized. Build an entire new protocol and standard around a single improvement? And then get people to build chips for that? Who's going to adopt your standard when there are powerful network (literally) effects in place? And how does that help when this improvement could be applied to any other protocol? Others can simply adopt this improvement in their own products and completely ignore yours.

I haven't seen anybody attempt to answer these questions. It doesn't take much thought to call someone a troll, though.

3. HNer DannyBee, a patent lawyer, had once (jokingly?) suggested that defendants may start faring well in ED Texas if they, say, built a stadium in Marshall. Looks like somebody at Samsung is thinking along the same lines. Though it didn't help in this case, I guess it may help in the longer term, especially given that Samsung is not an American company, something jurors may be consciously or subconsciously biased against.

There is a paper by a Qualcomm engineer that talks about how standards are set and how patents play a role in it, specifically in the context of 3GPP. It is a pretty complex process involving attending meetings and casting votes, and many participants do not contribute any technology. Surprisingly, patents seem to be an afterthought.

But then Qualcomm makes a billion or so every year in royalties, so that's something to keep in mind. Will link the article if I can find it.