Slashdot Log In
FTC Defends Ethernet From Patent Troll
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:42 AM
from the much-appreciated-folks dept.
from the much-appreciated-folks dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The FTC has put a stop to Negotiated Data Solutions, a patent troll that bought a patent on an important part of the Ethernet networking standard and tried to jack up the royalties for licensing it. In a consent decree (pdf), N-Data agreed to continue licensing the patent at the formerly promised rates. 'Whatever the merits of the decision, it shows that the FTC sees the value of standards and will be on the lookout for any behavior that could undermine these standards-setting process. That alone could keep companies honest when they enter the standards process. Standards-setting bodies have also become more sophisticated over the years (after being burned in several high-profile cases), and now do a better job at forcing involved companies to disclose and license patents.' The IEEE voted back in 2002 to make patent letters irrevocable, which could have prevented this, but neglected to make that clause retroactive."
Related Stories
Firehose:FTC Defends Ethernet From Patent Troll by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: LAN Turns 30, May Not See 40? 279 comments
dratcw writes "The first commercial LAN was based on ARCnet technology and was installed some 30 years ago, according to a ComputerWorld article. Bob Metcalfe, one of the co-inventors of Ethernet, recalls the early battles between the different flavors of LAN and says some claims from the Token Ring backers such as IBM were lies. 'I know that sounds nasty, but for 10 years I had to put up with that crap from the IBM Token Ring people — you bet I'm bitter.' Besides dipping into networking nostalgia, the article also quotes an analyst who says the LAN may be nearing its demise and predicts that all machines will be individually connected to one huge WAN at gigabit speeds. Could the LAN actually be nearing the end of its lifecycle?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But wait (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A small victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Patent troll turnover - 100M. Ethernet turnover... (Score:4, Insightful)
With 100M worth of capital you do not go against an industry with turnover in excess of 100s of Billions per year. Most networking gear all the way to 10G is Ethernet now and that industry as the chairman of FTC noted can fend for itself. In fact, based on the FTC decision it surely did.
How about a change in patent law... (Score:5, Informative)
As set forth in the US Constitution, the purpose of patents is twofold:
1: The temporary monopoly on the invention gives the inventor recompense for the investment made in the invention. In other words, it keeps him/her inventing instead of waiting tables.
2: The limited term of the patent brings the invention into the public domain, to be used as fodder for future inventions.
The whole idea of assignment of your invention rights is simply another way of getting recompense. It's a good idea, because it means you don't have to be a manufacturer and marketer, as well as an inventor. Assignment of rights lets you focus on inventing and not on those other things, if that's your bent.
And maybe reassignment by the first assignee might make sense, too. But by the time patent rights have been sold multiple times, the link back to one of the original functions - to keep the inventors inventing - is so diffuse that it has been lost, IMHO.
The Constitution never intended the patent as a revenue source beyond spurring invention. (Same with copyrights)
Re:How about a change in patent law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A higher standard for obviousness, use of science fiction as prior art (as in the geostationary satellite), and a better pre-granting discussion process (which is already being experimented with) is really all the system needs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly was this geostationary satellite patent trying to claim? For anything I've ever read about in science fiction, using the description provided by the author would make very poor prior art material. Generally the disclosure necessary to support useful claims requires a level of detail t
Re:How about a change in patent law... (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one that notices Slashdot's propensity to propose/applaud the limitations of others rights, while screaming loudly at any percieved limitation of their own?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nope, we're here. It's just that there is a current Scientology thread so we're busy pounding Xenu to shreds. Be back momentarily. Until then, keep up the good fight.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I already posted in this thread, so I can't use my mod points on your post, so I'll just say, you are not the only one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Neglect? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need another nautical analogy for this (Score:2)
This isn't a submarine patent. [wikipedia.org] In that case, the patent holder sneaks into the marketplace with a hidden patent and then springs it full-fledged upon businesses using the patented technology.
This case is a bit different. The patent was licensed to the current users of the patented technology--the "bad guy" ship wasn't a submarine sneaking into the middle of a convoy, it was one of the ships already part of the convoy. But then the ship is taken over by another entity... say, a crew of pirates... and they to
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent like any other property comes along with it's
own baggage. If they didn't want the baggage, they shouldn't
have bought the property. Attempting to have it both ways
is a problem in terms of just basic business that is far
more fundemental than patent trolling.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because their predecessor in interest, National Semiconductor, agreed to a $1000 license, with no consideration for inflation. Which Negotiated Data Solutions should have known when they bought the parent.
(Geez, "Negotiated Data Solutions" even sounds like the name of a shakedown organization)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Informative)
Many times it isn't even a true "improvement", just a minor tweak; like dextro-rotating (or levo-rotating) the molecule, or producing a racemic mixture (e.g. Adderal vs. Dexadrine, the aforementioned Prilosec vs. Nexium), or making an extended-release version.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is WOW. (Score:5, Informative)
All I can say Wow...
1 A patent is not a software license or a copyright. A patent does have a limited life span.
2. When a patent expires then it becomes totally free. Not free as beer, speech, or the GPL. Free as in public domain free. You can do anything you want with it after it expires.
So all I can say is WOW.....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A
You must be new here.
Not necessarily a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the GP is only a troll is the poster doesn't believe the content of the post, but rather posts just to go against the prevailing sentiment and arouse a reaction.
Second, a phrase like "exploiting the flaws of the system" is quite loaded. Like if someone you like is charged with a crime but not convicted, you might say that person is not guilty. If someone you don't like is in the same situation, you might say, they only got off on a technicality.
I'm not guilty of murder, but only on a technicality. Of course, that technicality is the fact that I haven't killed anyone, or caused the death of anyone, or done anything else covered by the laws that define murder. But that's only a technicality.
If you think the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees is a "flaw of the system" then yes, in this case the company was trying to exploit that flaw. Of course I could say the requirement to release source code is a flaw of the GPL, and anyone trying to get me to release the source of an application based on GPL code I am selling is just a troll exploiting the flaws of the system.
I may hear replies that the requirement to release source code is not a flaw of the GPL, but rather is an intentional aspect of how the GPL works. On the same tip, some might say the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees for use of works covered by the patent, and the right to increase those fees should the patented works prove to be popular, is not a flaw in the system, but part of how patents are intended to work.
Parent