Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

31–40 of 50 posts

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

#31
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"R&D for your competitors for free" sounds like the open source movement to me. In the brief amount of time I worked in telecom, I was shocked at how paranoid and backstabby it appeared to be.

A lot of open source comes from companies who make their money not by selling technology but by selling services, often by leveraging data, which they guard jealously. They have little to lose and a lot of geek cred to gain by open sourcing useful projects, not to mention the bonus of "commoditizing your complements" a la Spolsky.

This does not apply to companies that sell the technology itself. Not to mention the fact that telecomm R&D is not like software R&D, which, let's face it, is mostly just re-doing D for R that happened decades ago.

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

#32

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…

For point 2, there are a few factors that go into distinguishing a non-manufacturer patent holder vs. a patent troll. First, is the use of low quality patents. A low quality patent is one or more of the following:

* Overly broad

* Describes the problem space, and claims all possible solutions to that problem

* Written in such a way that you can't implement the covered technology based on the patent description

* Covers existing practice, or what is destined to become standard practice in a new field, but worded in such a way to make it appear more novel

* Doesn't pass the non-obviousness test (need to be careful with this one, because a lot of patent-worthy inventions are obvious in hind site)

Also, a patent troll typically waits till a technology is well established before suing, in order to maximize payout (see submarine patents). Another soft clue to identifying a patent troll, is if the party being sued had came to knowledge of the covered technology by way of the patent or patent holder/inventor. If it is independent invention, then that could indicate that the patent fails the non-obviousness test.

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

#33

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…

> Sigh, par for the course for any patent-related reporting on Ars.

Honestly, I think there's a quality drop all around and not just in patent-related articles. Reading the comments on any legal-related articles is as much fun though as people watching in the homeopathy section of Whole Foods.

On 1, I didn't look at the cited references, but it'd be interesting to see if any of the Bluetooth-related patents were included.

On 2, I guess the only objection I have to NPEs are the type operating through shell corporations wherein their risk-exposure is so low that they can fill the courts up with frivolous crap. It'd be interesting to see if there was a way to curb that behavior (like putting up a bond or something). Are you aware of any proposals?

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

#34

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 va…

They get the patents in various ways. The common way is to buy it from a bankrupt company, though many companies who aren't bankrupt will sell off patents. A lot of them will buy company X, then create X LLC as a holding company for the patents to sort of trick people into thinking it is a real company.

Some trolls will make their own patents. Sometimes it is engineers who fancy themselves inventors or other times it is a patent attorney looking to make money. Though the latter is fairly rare.

There are several big "patent assertion companies" that do this on a large scale. They are very good at determining value of a patent, figuring out who to sue, etc. They have a team of lawyers on staff. These types of trolls usually go after big companies for big dollars. They'll definitely settle, but they aren't looking for 40k or something small.

Some are small time groups or even single people who just learned the system. A lot are former attorneys. These smaller ones are more likely to just seek a small payout. These ones are the most annoying because they often have zero case but are demanding such a low amount that its better to just pay, which of course incentivizes more patent exortion.

But there are a lot of smaller law firms that specialize in troll law suits who do most of the legal work. I'm not sure what the business model is like, if they work on contingency or not.

If the trolls are making their own patent, one way to "craft" your patents is continued applications. You claim a super broad claim early, and then continue to fight over it for years and years. If you win the broad claim, huge win. But even if you don't, you can sort of craft the claims to cover technology that has since gone mainstream. The continued applications get backdated to the original. This practice has been reigned in a bit by changes to law and regulation.

But I think the best way is to just pick up patents from a legit company that is selling them or is in bankruptcy. These companies will have patents that were cutting edge at the time. I also think it's the more morally defensible way to patent troll. You give R&D extra value and let companies take out loans backed by IP, because you are creating a market for IP. I'm sure more than a couple mature start ups have leveraged patent portfolios to borrow capital.

The trolls and their attorneys are typically more efficient than defense firms. Defense firms typically throw an army of lawyers at the case and it has diminishing returns. Also, the plaintiffs role just seems easier IMO.

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

#35
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?

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

Other sorts of capitalists founded companies that produce something.

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

#36

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 va…

They get the patents in various ways. The common way is to buy it from a bankrupt company, though many companies who aren't bankrupt will sell off patents. A lot of them will buy company X, then create X LLC as a holding company for the patents to sort of trick people into thinking it is a real company. Some trolls will make their own patents. Sometimes it is engineers who fancy themselves inventors or other times it…

Thanks for the information.

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

#37
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"R&D for your competitors for free" sounds like the open source movement to me. In the brief amount of time I worked in telecom, I was shocked at how paranoid and backstabby it appeared to be.

The GnuPG maintainer is begging for nickles, while most commercial investment into open source is incidental to some other activity that generates the real money. Those aren't good things. When you make it difficult to monetize a product, you create a huge incentive for companies to vertically integrate until they control part of the stack that can be monetized. E.g. Android can exist as open source because it's an on-ramp to Google's proprietary web services.

If companies like Qualcomm couldn't directly monetize their R&D, the likely end result would be their getting sucked up into companies like Apple and Samsung that build end-user products.

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

#38

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 va…

Check out ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold [0] of Intellectual Ventures [1] infamy. He's also famous for his epic modernist cuisine cooking bible [2]. I also highly recommend the This American Life two-part podcast on patent trolls [3] [4]. You can read Nathan's attempted justification of his patent troll activities here [5]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectu…

Nothing makes my blood boil more than Nathan Myhrvold's weird justifications for his behavior. It all sounds plausible, maybe even admirable, and then he turns around and funds 'inventors' that have patents for absolute malarkey. At this point, I hope he is ONLY remembered for being a troll and nothing else.

Once people make it to the top, they almost always try to change the rules so no one can follow in their footsteps. "Well, yes, that was okay for me, but you are going to have to make it on your own, kiddo."

Establishing a capital market for inventions sounds like a great idea, but it is predicated on the notion that the patent office is not asleep at the wheel. Person-in-garage-invents-life-changing-technology is a great trope, but where the rubber meets the road we have the Eolas patent and various "using a computer or network of computers" patents.

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

#39
post #32

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…

For point 2, there are a few factors that go into distinguishing a non-manufacturer patent holder vs. a patent troll. First, is the use of low quality patents. A low quality patent is one or more of the following: * Overly broad * Describes the problem space, and claims all possible solutions to that problem * Written in such a way that you can't implement the covered technology based on the patent description * Cove…

It seems like most of your points are already addressed in patent law. A good patent litigation counsel on the opposing side should be able to dig up prior art to invalidate any overly broad or obvious claims, and should be able to invalidate any patent that does not sufficiently teach how to make and how to use the invention due to lack of enablement.

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

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

EE/CE here. Yeah that's a garbage patent. I'm a practitioner in the field and 20 years ago that would have been some forward-thinking stuff. But in 2009, when it was filed? Total joke.

The priority date of the patent was Dec 5, 1997. So was it forward thinking a little over 17 years ago?
Post reply on HN