Patent Troll Says Anyone Using Wi-Fi Infringes 436
akahige sends this excerpt from an article at TechDirt:
"The Patent Examiner blog has the incredible story of Innovatio IP, a patent troll that recently acquired a portfolio of patents that its lawyers (what, you think there are any employees?) appear to believe cover pretty much any Wi-Fi implementation. They've been suing coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants and hotels first — including Caribou Coffee, Cosi, Panera Bread Co, certain Marriotts, Best Westerns, Comfort Inns and more. ... The lawyer representing the company, Matthew McAndrews, seems to imply that the company believes the patents cover everyone who has a home Wi-Fi setup, but they don't plan to go after such folks right now, for 'strategic' reasons."
Nothing from Hams? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I guess amateur radio operators have been infringing since, what... the early 1900's? Voice is just data, right..?
Re:Nothing from Hams? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! You! Stop that right now! You leave your logic out of this! This is the patent system we're talking about!
Moreover, it's on the Internet. Double patent bonus points!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One can only hope. It is greedy twits such as these that will finally get the patent system reformed.
Of course I hold out no faith of it being "fixed" since the US drives such policy worldwide and has been bought and sold by everyone who is anyone in the corporate sector. One hopes for at least incremental improvements over time though!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, if I had a big-ass directional antenna pointed straight at the ham's perhaps omnidirectional receiving antenna, I could easily overpower whatever he/she received from farther away, if said was transmitted omnidirectionally even at 10W vs. mine directionally at 250mW. It'd take a fairly reasonable antenna gain to do: a factor of 80-100 or so. It's EIRP that counts, after all, not absolute power.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody uses omnidirectional antennas for ham operation in 2.4Ghz. Almost all operation is with satellites or point-to-point, and 10- to 20-element yagi beams are standard equipment. It's because of simple physics and the distance involved, plus there are way more sources of noise on S-band than your little directional router. With the beam pointed straight up, they probably won't even hear your signal, nor you theirs. Funny thing about radio waves, they propagate (or not) the same in both directions. P
Re: (Score:2)
The ham radio rules for spread spectrum use limit you to one watt if you aren't using something to automatically limit the power level to the minimum required, or 100 watts if you do.
Outside of spread spectrum, I think the power limit is 1500 watts. Of course, most of the fun stuff on the 2.4 GHz band is spread spectrum.
Of course, high power 2.4 GHz gear tends to be expensive, and most hams who muck with WiFi under the ham rules simply use off the shelf equipment with their limited power -- but they often
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I agree with this... I was aiming for the inanity of the situation, and was reaching *shrugs*
Re: (Score:3)
First to file does not invalidate prior art. I really wish people understood this.
I don't believe in patents and want them abolished, but lets not spread fud. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
But they're exactly NOT suing them. For "strategic reasons". Personally, I'd think the main "strategic reason" would be that a lot of lawyers and judges use WiFi in their office and it could kinda create an interest for them to stand up united against the trolls and kick them in their balls.
By suing only hotels, they go for the usual low hanging fruit. They're targets that not only can afford paying up but are also usually less well prepared for lengthy lawsuits. In other words, exactly the sweet spot betwe
Take out a hit? (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point its just cheaper to pay someone to take a hit out on a troll like this. Maybe invite him out on your new yacht and have a little accident...
Re: (Score:3)
Short term thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
To solve the general problem, we need to encourage more ridiculous patent trolls. This needs to get to a critical threshold where the entire system is brought on trial and exposed for the absolute absurdity that it is.
Re:Short term thinking (Score:5, Funny)
This solves one problem only once. Then the portfolios passes to the next person and the problem repeats itself.
So does the solution. Repeat as necessary
Re:Short term thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
If the first guy is found choked to death on his severed genitals (the old Mafia punishment for snitches) it might give others pause.
While I'm not advocating such things, let's not forget that in the early 1900s gangs were NECESSARY because there was no justice to be had from a flawlessly corrupt government. For anyone to get leverage they had to mob up. Union membership could get you murdered, so the unions had to make friends with the Mob to get a "system" on their side. As the elites squeeze out the people, organized "crime" will be the only way for some of them to get a modicum of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm sorry... but there is a pre-existing patent, I believe filed in either Italy or Japan on this method...
Someone will be by to discuss it with your shortly.
Something we can do? (Score:2)
Isn't there *something* that can be done about this?
We've got a fair number of layers on this site. Can't someone come up with an innovative chess-move style action that would hurt these guys?
Maybe getting all the sued companies to file a class-action suit against the router manufacturers, in order to bring big guns into the fight?
Maybe sue the troll for barratry or something? Some procedural complaint about the practice?
This is the sort of thing that encourages Lulzsec behaviour. What can we suggest that w
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the cheapest and most effective solution.
The companies being sued get together and split the bill for just one of them to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of their devices. The IP being used in the device should be completely covered by the costs of the device. Period. It is ludicrous to say and end user that paid money, using the original firmware, is the correct party to sue in a court.
Make a huge lawsuit against Linksys, Cisco, Netgear, Buffalo, D-Link, etc.
Take out a 1 page ad in the N
Re:Take out a hit? (Score:5, Funny)
“We want you to continue to use this technology, we just want our client to get his due share,” McAndrews said. “This is not a seat-of-the-pants, fly-by-night shakedown.”
Well, they admitted that it's a professional shakedown. A professional hit seems only fair.
Re:Take out a hit? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they just get driven out of the patent troll business, they'll just switch to defrauding the elderly or phishing scams.
Re:Take out a hit? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Take out a hit? (Score:5, Funny)
Burn down their house, enslave their children, forcibly sell their wives into slavery. Napalm the suburb, nuke the capital. Use waterboarding, electric shock, exposure and "pressure points". Rape their dog, garrot their parents, and TNT the homes of their high school sweethearts.
But please, we live in a civilized world, lets not debase ourselves with such barbarianism as asking our enemys go on hunting trips with Dick cheney.
Re: (Score:2)
for a while now, that I've been seeing that due to the highly boken patent system the only to fight these assholes is doing it using their own weapons. I've been doing my part.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
Return Fire
Innovatio’s first infringement suit, filed March 8 against Caribou Coffee Co., Cosí, and other small business chains, triggered retaliation from wireless communications giants Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Cisco Systems.
In May, Motorola and Cisco fired back with a complaint asking for declaratory judgment, calling for the Delaware federal court to rule that their products don’t infringe, and declare Innovatio’s patents invalid.
“Innovatio is in the business of enforcing and licensing patents,” Motorola and Cisco allege in their complaint. “Innovatio does not sell or offer for sale any products.”
'Strategic' reasons being ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no money in going after home users. They would have to basically drive around looking for WiFi hotspots, and the money they would spend doing so would never be recouped. Much more profitable to just go after businesses.
While that is true; the last thing they want is bunch of pissed off people calling their representatives and demanding action; especially if some of the angry mob are donors. Congress could end their game in one swell foop, and if they made the mistake of targeting people in multiple distrust it'd be tantamount to suicide.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
t'd be like approaching GM to get information so you can sue people for driving cars. It's not in their interest to sell, no matter the money.
Imagine, hypothetically, that GM were going broke...
Re: (Score:2)
what, avoiding a lynch mob?
Guess the mob of people will pay them a visit, after they take care of Wall Street.
Only one solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kill them with fire.
Re:Only one solution. (Score:5, Funny)
Not enough. These aren't your run of the mill D&D trolls that can be killed by fire.
Nuke from orbit to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
As the perp says in Dirty Harry, "I gots to know..."
What *did* win the bet?
Winner of the bet (Score:2)
My opponent polymorphed himself [alter self] into an image of the [other] town's mayor, then went to the biggest orc camp he could find.
He killed their spiritual leader and raped the leader's woman in full view of the assembled horde, then gave a rather insulting speech about manhood, fighting capability, and followed it up with demands that they leave the area before his "town" came out and took them all into slavery.
Then he "flew" away.
A week or so later, just about the entire orc nation descended on the
Classic patent trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Classic patent trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
How the christ can it possibly be legal to sue people who use technology that infringes a patent which was sold to them by someone else?
Isn't the whole enterprise of patents supposed to cover the manufacture and commercial sale of inventions, not their use?
Re:Classic patent trolling (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the U.S. patent system is fundamentally and completely broken. Patents cover the manufacture, distribution, or use of a patented technology. What, you didn't really think you owned that Wi-Fi access point, did you?
The only reason this complete joke of a scheme hasn't led to public outcry is that the patent trolls haven't managed to screw over a broad enough segment of the population to make any real impact. If strict application of patent law were to allow some dirtbag company like this to take away the country's Internet connections, however, I predict all of Washington D.C. would be burning within the hour, sure as if Congress canceled Monday Night Football.
As for this company, I vote we just go ahead and declare them to be enemy combatants and get it over with. It'll save everyone the trouble of dealing with the rioting and looting later. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
They have quite an uphill row to hoe. Or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
If Cisco and Motorola as were mentioned in the story as going to court on this got thousands of lawsuits each, there would be some urgency on their part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even clear that they are suing over technology that was sold to them by someone else. This could be Broadcom suing their own customers (indirectly, they could be using equipment with Broadcom chips in it) and the company doing the suing could have close ties to Broadcom. Why else would Broadcom sell the patents to a patent troll?
Re:Classic patent trolling (Score:5, Funny)
Ask to meet all their top executives of this cesspool, take them out on a rented yacht. Insure it to high hell. Take it off the coast of Mexico, and inform the local drug cartel that a bunch of wealthy gringos are meeting to figure out a way bomb them off the face of the earth, then over take their drug business. After the smoke, screaming and mutilation stop... go collect your insurance, pay off the boat owner, and pocket the remainder. Inform the U.S. justice system that Mexican Drug Lords have murdered American national. Let Karma play out and consider justice has been dispensed on all fronts. Building a better world one elimination at a time!
Re:Classic patent trolling (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pork pie hat to you sir! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says betterment of mankind? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hat Guy is in it for the movie rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we patent football plays? That would get their attention.
Its time for our government to try like the dickens to encourage people doing things, not beat the hell out of anyone caught trying to do something.
When it comes to productive economic activity, our government seems to look at us like moonshiners.
I wait with baited breath for our government to realize one day that we can't print prosperity, or get it by taking
Re: (Score:2)
There you go, let's patent the process of removing urine or fecal matter from the bottom of an infant, then sue every parent in the country to cough up a little loose change. Call it the the potty toll. Tell America, they can pay the potty toll or squeeze their representatives into cleaning up the toilet that the patent system is. Use the money collected to lobby the ass off of the Representatives responsible for the current wreck that is the Patent System.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we patent football plays? That would get their attention.
I don't see why we couldn't. Interesting idea ...
That's what we get... (Score:3)
Good for the lawyers. Not very good for everyone else.
That's what we get for making so many lawyers in this country. People bitch about how med schools and dental schools "don't make enough doctors/dentists". Law schools make absurd surpluses of lawyers and now we see what happens when we have too many of them. The lawyers aren't getting enough business from people, so they have to find new ways to keep themselves busy by suing each other.
Not to say that we couldn't use more medical and dental professionals, but we sure as hell don't need any more lawyer
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I'd want some of the lawyers to become doctors...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can we on one hand complain about an excess of laws, poorly written laws, challenge the trolls exploiting the laws, and generally complain about the inaccessibility of the law to the common man, while on the other hand claim a shortage of jobs for lawyers?
Re: (Score:3)
Drive-thru colleges create drive-thru public defenders.
Quantity != Quality
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you're dyslexic, and that should be "sued."
Re: (Score:3)
This is one thing that doesn't make sense. If these patents truly are valid then the end users who purchased the equipment are not the ones who are violating the patents, instead the creators of the devices are the violators. Going after the end users is stupid and is clearly an extortion ("pay up a little now or face the dreaded legal fees").
"Strategic Reasons" (Score:2)
Re:"Strategic Reasons" (Score:4, Insightful)
They could not recoup their losses going after home users the way they can with business users.
What losses?
Re: (Score:3)
Imaginary profit making made real by kangaroo courts and parasitic lawyers.
I don't see the rationale (Score:2)
Re:I don't see the rationale (Score:5, Insightful)
"The page linked to by this summary did not explain why the patent trolls are going after the users of WiFi devices, rather than vendors."
actually it did:
"The company is demanding a one-time lump sum licensing payment between $2,300 and $5,000 from each of the several hundred defendants targeted in its lawsuits, McAndrews said. Some of the defendants have already settled, he added."
"In casting such a wide net, Innovatio (it means “innovation” in Latin, McAndrews said) displays a new approach in patent enforcement. In a field where patent-holding companies often demand six- or seven-figure dollar amounts for damages, five-figure settlements are considered basement-low. By demanding a few thousand dollars, Innovatio ensures that, for many small business owners, taking up a legal defense won’t make financial sense."
They are suing when they can pursue action cheaper than the defendant can defend. If the patent were strong they'd go after big money, but the big money will fight and since the patent is weak, they will instead play spam.
Also, by suing a large number of people in diverse locations and jurisdictions they will make it difficult for defendants to defend collectively and economically.
Think of all the Jobs Being Created by the Job Creator Class, isn't it lovely?
Re: (Score:3)
It's the RIAA extortion racket all over again.
Write the AG and tell him to get RICO on their asses for racketeering.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is called the protection racket. Paying your weekly fee is cheaper than fixing your windows or hiring an army of security guards.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the usual reasons. Easy shakedown target. The defendants are ill equipped to invalidate the patents since they aren't technology companies and the extortion amount is kept carefully below the cost of going to court.
It's pretty much the same as any shakedown racket with the courts playing the part of the leg breaker.
Re: (Score:3)
Frustrating Waste of Money & Time (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to Indemnify (Score:2)
Of course this would only fight off the current troll and would then make them a stalking horse for whatever crocodiles hold more potent submarine patents...possibly large competitors of theirs..
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Some brave(r) HW manufacturer or service provider needs to act as an indemnifier and take up the fight on behalf of their customers...
But where's the money in that for them?
Also, they run the risk of *losing*. Courts don't always get it right -- and for all we know, the patent might actually be valid. (I haven't read it, and even if I had, I'm probably not qualified to determine if it's valid and it applies to WiFi anyways.)
It shouldn't be one brave HW manufacturer or service provider. It really should be all of them working together, as the end result benefits (or hurts) all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent has to be actively protected. So if it was filed in the 90s and not enforced until today, from my understanding they essentially forfeit the right to later lay claims to the patent
In the U.S.? No. Trademarks have to be actively protected. Patents -- not so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents do NOT need to be protected, or necessarily even filed before the patent was violated, to be enforced. Patents, copyright, and trademarks - they're all different things.
This is why... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just another example in an infinitely long chain of abuses, and still there is essentially no proof that either patents or copyright actually encourage much of anything. So, are we going to abolish imaginary property, or fade into legally enforced obscurity? Because I know China won't give a crap about our patents once they no longer need to sell us cheap junk. If all we export is old ideas and lawsuits, there will reach a point when other powerful countries just shut down that trade all together.
Wake up, people, now is the time to elect people who are going to do something about this untenable situation. You aren't going to get another chance.
Re: (Score:3)
The founders were wrong about almost everything, from the voting system which discourages alternative candidates, down to women's rights and slavery. They really ought to not be worshiped as they are; most were criminals in it for their own gain, and are only "good" by comparison to those they were fighting against.
In this specific case, the founders w
Re: (Score:3)
If you got it out the door first, then there will be a period where you will be the only one in the market, allowing you to sell it at a non-marginal price.
Also, there are way more disadvantages than advantages. Take this scenario for example: You make something and patent it. I, with no knowledge of your invention, invent the same thing, but since its patented now I have to pay you for some reason
Another example: Lets say I want to make something that is similar to your invention, but I have an improvemen
Re: (Score:3)
Conflict of interest!!!11 (Score:3)
But but.. how are they going to find a judge who doesn't use wireless technology? The entire system is against them! Oh, the poor trolls!
Seriously though, maybe this one [techdirt.com].
Re: (Score:2)
But but.. how are they going to find a judge who doesn't use wireless technology?
They don't have to. If anybody actually does defend against their suit, they just drop the suit. Or offer a license for $1 instead of thousands (that way, they can still claim a victory, even if it really isn't.)
They certainly don't expect to be taken to court over this -- if they did, they'd be asking for more money. As it stands, they're keeping the cost of settling less than the cost of any sort of defense, which makes any rational person want to settle. Only somebody with an axe to burn would actual
They are infringing on my patent (Score:3, Interesting)
These bastards owe me money!
Re: (Score:2)
Troll is SOOOOO obvious (Score:2)
Let's pretend for a moment, that these people aren't just trolls looking for quick settlements. Difficult, I know.
But in what universe does it make sense for a patent holder to sue the end user? That would be like Apple suing a consumer for buying a Samsung tablet.
I would like to see one of the troll victims post an open letter that says something along the lines of, "Go away or prepare to be counter-sued into oblivion." Alas, TFA makes it sound like someone could try that and still lose. :(
Any info about the patents in question? (Score:2)
I didn't find any information about the patents themselves, just that they'd been acquired from Broadcom.
How can we properly rant about "obvious" and "prior art" if we don't know what the patents entail?
Re: (Score:2)
Not going after home users yet... (Score:2)
They're not going after home users yet but they never will. They may try to make it sound like there is a persuasive reason for end users to buy a license or something but taking a non-commercial entity to court over using an unlicensed or infringing device is asking for it to be thrown out with prejudice. End users are not selling equipment or services. Anyone could build, from scratch, a device that infringes on every patent every filed and, unless they tried to sell it, no one can say a damned thing abou
Re: (Score:2)
> unless they tried to sell it, no one can say a damned thing about it
Not true. Commercial activity is not required for infringement. (So said the patent lawyer I talked to at Apple, years and years ago).
Their absurdity will eventually do them in. (Score:2, Insightful)
....Just by being themselves.
I've never been a fan of government regulation because they also tend to over-reach and worse, they strip people of liberty. However, every single business regulation can be traced back to someone, or group of someones, who obnoxiously pushed enough people to the edge. We had robber-baron railroad operators. That brought the common-carrier regulations. We had dangerous work conditions and awful long (non-voluntary) work hours. Along came labor regulations and OSHA. A lake burned
What, no Starbucks? (Score:3)
I would have thought that Starbucks (the largest coffee chain in the USA and possibly the entire world) would have been a target since WiFi has been a huge part of their business lately.
Or McDonalds (the largest fast food joint on the planet with over 11,500 WiFi locations in the US alone)
Amazing (Score:3)
The company is demanding a one-time lump sum licensing payment between $2,300 and $5,000 from each of the several hundred defendants targeted in its lawsuits, McAndrews said. Some of the defendants have already settled, he added. [...] “This is not a seat-of-the-pants, fly-by-night shakedown.
Law school probably offers an entire range of courses teaching their students how to keep a straight face.
Crazy Pianist and Brilliant Babe Patent Wi-Fi Tech (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
(Come on Slashdot, I'm logged in, and I still can't post twice in 5 minutes?)
Re:CSIRO (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to know what number patents Innovatio are using. The CSIRO patent (5,487,069, filed in 1992) was a pretty complete description of the 802.11 OFDM physical layer. Surely anything else has to be a minor and obvious increment? The oldest patent I can see, with inventors Meier and Mahany, is 5,394,436, filed in 1994, and it does not refer to the CSIRO patent (meaning it is open to challenge from the CSIRO patent?) 5,394,436 might apply to the MAC layer, rather than the physical layer, and it is quite vague. Defenders might want to refer to the PARROT project, which the CSIRO was running as part of its WLAN work, predating 5,394,436. PARROT was a complete WLAN MAC layer (google: csiro parrot mac layer).
There was also a PhD thesis that came out of Macquarie University in the early 1990's. The name of the author escapes me, but the supervisor was David Skellern. The thesis described a MAC layer for mobile IP, and fed heavily into the standards at the time.
Re:CSIRO (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CSIRO (Score:5, Informative)
They have 34 assorted patents that they are using as an Argumentum Verbosium - Proof by intimidation. They make up hundreds of pages of legalese, there's no way a business can defend itself without spending tens of thousands on patent attorneys to examine those claims and cross-check them against the WiFi standards. Below are the 17 patents asserted against Holiday Inn, have fun. (Talk about "redundant" patents!)
6,714,559 “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.”
7,386,002 “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.”
7,535,921 “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.”
7,548,553 “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.”
5,740,366 “Communication Network Having Plurality Of Bridging Nodes Which Transmit A Beacon To Terminal Nodes In Power Saving State That It Has Messages Awaiting Delivery.”
5,940,771 “Network Supporting Roaming, Sleeping Terminals.”
6,374,311 “Communication Network Having A Plurality Of Bridging Nodes Which Transmit A Beacon To Terminal Nodes In Power Saving State That It Has Messages Awaiting Delivery.”
7,457,646 “Radio Frequency Local Area Network.”
5,546,397 “High Reliability Access Point For Wireless Local Area Network.”
5,844,893 “System For Coupling Host Computer Means With Base Transceiver Units On A Local Area Network.”
6,665,536 “Local Area Network Having Multiple Channel Wireless Access.”
6,697,415 “Spread Spectrum Transceiver Module Utilizing Multiple Mode Transmission.”
7,013,138 “Local Area Network Having Multiple Channel Wireless Access.”
7,710,907 “Local Area Network Having Multiple Channel Wireless Access.”
7,916,747 “Redundant Radio Frequency Network Having A Roaming Terminal Communication Protocol.”
7,873,343 “Communication Network Terminal With Sleep Capability.”
7,536,167 “Network Supporting Roaming, Sleeping Terminals.”
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I can't afford to fight them in court, but I CAN afford bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
Would I be infringing the patent if I used WaveLAN? Its wireless networking developed in the 80's according to Wikipedia. No patent relating to that should still be valid.
You might think that, but ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent [wikipedia.org]
Also, there could be more recent updates to the protocol that are covered. I don't know anything about the patents this story is about, but for example ... WiFi could have had all its patents expire, but WPA and WPA2 are more recent and are still covered by patents. (This is just me giving an example -- I'm not saying WPA/WPA2/etc are covered by patents or aren't covered by patents or anything, really.)
What if I bought a broadcom product covered by the broadcom owned patents before they were sold to this troll?
Might be an effective defense
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is. It's called Declaratory Judgment.
And Cisco & Motorola have already started the process for you: http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems-inc-and-motorola-solutions-inc-v-innovatio-ip-ventures-llc.pdf [wordpress.com]