Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Wireless Networking Your Rights Online Hardware

Cisco Sued over OFDM Wireless Standards 142

Posted by simoniker from the floating-through-the-ether dept.
Agent Green writes "It's definitely not the first time someone has been sued over a standard, but Wi-LAN is in the process of taking Cisco to court over the OFDM encoding which it claims to have patents for - the standards in question apply to 802.11a/g. Interestingly, this case is being brought in Canada, where the defense needs to prove its case. Might be time to join and expand the patent busting brigade?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cisco Sued over OFDM Wireless Standards More

Cisco Sued over OFDM Wireless Standards

Comments Filter:

  • Trouble (Score:3, Funny)

    by sigaar ( 733777 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @04:47AM (#9516059)
    Patents just cause trouble. See? See?

  • exactly! (Score:5, Funny)

    by curator_thew ( 778098 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @04:50AM (#9516068)

    Who cares that it may have cost millions of dollars of risk and investment to devise, refine and perfect OFDM and the related technologies ... we just want them to be free for all of us to use, so we definitely should bust their patents.

    By the way, I know that it took you years of hard work to earn a salary to pay off your mortgage, but I actually think your house would make for a good party zone, so me and the boys will be around next Saturday night.

    • Re:exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @04:59AM (#9516099)
      I actually think your house would make for a good party zone, so me and the boys will be around next Saturday night.

      No thank you, but if you'd like to build yourself a house just like it I'd have no particular objections.

      KFG
      • I'd first want to make sure though you didn't patent the house's layout and materials...
      • "No thank you, but if you'd like to build yourself a house just like it I'd have no particular objections."

        Nice try, but the concept is the same: both you and the inventor put hard work and effort into producing something, it's just that yours is a tangible product, and theirs is one step back and requires manufacturing to make tangible. Either way, the reason you put the hard work and effort in is because you have some certainty that the end result is protected for you, and that people just can't come and

        • Re:exactly! (Score:1, Funny)

          by kfg ( 145172 )
          I'm not going to defend patents here.

          After taking a few stabs at formulating a reply I find that you have left me with only enough speech to say that I'm speechless.

          KFG

        • Re:exactly! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by femto ( 459605 )
          I happen to know a little about the current situation as I used to work for the inventors of Cisco's technology.

          It's interesting to note that when Cisco bought Radiata (the company that developed their OFDM technology), they *didn't* buy Radiata because of their patent! This was told to me by one of the most senior guys in the company.

          Radiata's patent covered the baseband digital systems. Cisco bought the company because of the 5GHz radio chip the company had developed.

          This radio chip was ahead of an

      • Re:exactly! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by supersandra ( 788539 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:47AM (#9516233)
        Which is, of course, what patents are really about. Very good point.

        Copyrights would be more of a "take your house and use it as my own" deal, yes?

        I'm always torn on patents; the idea is good but the system is flawed. People can get patents for very stupid or common things. However, if you have a really great and original idea, it also seems like you ought to be able to make money off of it without a bunch of copycats stomping you out of business. At least for an appropriate period of time, at least.

        • Re:exactly! (Score:3, Informative)

          by kfg ( 145172 )
          Copyrights would be more of a "take your house and use it as my own" deal, yes?

          Well no, not really. That would be plagiarizing. Taking an idea and claiming it as your own.

          . . .if you have a really great and original idea, it also seems like you ought to be able to make money off of it without a bunch of copycats stomping you out of business. At least for an appropriate period of time, at least.

          Given that the idea is a thing and not just an idea, like one click shopping, sure. Jefferson pretty much got

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re:exactly! (Score:2, Informative)

              by kfg ( 145172 )
              One of the flaws inherent in patenting, as opposed to copyright, is that you can violate a patent even if you didn't copy it.

              You're not a songwriter, are you? We live in daily mortal terror of that very thing.

              And it is the very crux of my "build your own house" example.

              KFG

        • At least for an appropriate period of time, at least.

          My sentiments exactly.

          A 17 year term might have been appropriate back in the 1700s.

          Now, I'm thinking 17 months would be better.

        • In a "functional world" patents would only be sought by individuals when effort had been expended and they would only be granted when a learned individual said "damn straight, great idea."

          With the advent of the idea patent, or more precisely with the demise of the "working model requirement" we lost the "effort" hoop.

          With the natural tendency to fire people for saying "I don't know (this topic), we need to ask someone who does" from the patent office (or, sadly, most jobs) we lost the "learned individual"

    • Not exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @04:59AM (#9516100) Homepage
      > Who cares that it may have cost millions of
      > dollars of risk and investment to devise, refine
      > and perfect OFDM and the related technologies

      Yeah, right.

      The concept of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing is old. Way old. Like, 1960s old. The mathematics behind it could easily be grasped by anyone who knows what a sine wave is. These people certainly didn't devise it. And they admit it, for example in this white-paper:

      www.wi-lan.com/library/whitepaper_wofdm_technica l. pdf

      If you look at what they're *actually* claiming to own, this W-OFDM technology is really just a bunch of pre-existing technologies - modulation scheme, channel coding, FFTs, embedded pilot channels - which they've lumped together, given a name and patented. If you look at their block diagrams, you'll see little more than an undergraduate textbook on modern communications systems design would show you.

      > we just want them to be free for all of us to use,
      > so we definitely should bust their patents.

      No... we just want unfettered competition to bring us the benefits of the free market, without being bogged down by people claiming to have "invented" things that aren't actually novel in any way.

      • Re:Not exactly. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by curator_thew ( 778098 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:38AM (#9516201)
        ``If you look at what they're *actually* claiming to own, this W-OFDM technology is really just a bunch of pre-existing technologies - modulation scheme, channel coding, FFTs, embedded pilot channels - which they've lumped together, given a name and patented. If you look at their block diagrams, you'll see little more than an undergraduate textbook on modern communications systems design would show you.``

        Nice try, but you're committing the classic mistake: retrospectively assessing an invention. Many inventions look deceptively simple and obvious in hindsight. In fact, it's often the hallmark of a brilliant invention that it's so simple.

        Do you think that it was obvious to combine all of those elements in that particular way? Do you think that it required no undue experimentation to perfect the system and reduce it to a workable technology ?

        I mean, using your argument, we could say that the transistor was obvious, because it's just a bunch of pre-existing concepts put together.

        ``without being bogged down by people claiming to have "invented" things that aren't actually novel in any way.``

        And equally, being bogged down by people claiming that the invention was obvious, so they can use it themselves to rip off the hard work and cost of the inventor.

        Basically, put your money where your mouth is and put more effort into proving that the invention wasn't inventive and non-obvious given the state of the art in 1993.

        • Re:Not exactly. (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yes. it was obvious. The reason why it was obvious was because it has been done before. Please stop astroturfing.

          Your transistor "argument" is lacking an actual argument. Things aren't a certain way just becasue you say so.

          Just pick up any book on RF coms. This is basic stuff for anyone experienced in the field.

          • "Yes. it was obvious. The reason why it was obvious was because it has been done before."

            I suppose you've looked at all the specific claims of the invention and done the work to examine it then? Or have you just skimmed across the buzzwords and come to your conclusion?

            "Just pick up any book on RF coms. This is basic stuff for anyone experienced in the field. "

            Since I happen to be an EE, I did this long ago.

            I don't actually pretend to have an opinion one way or another because I haven't spent the couple

            • Re:Not exactly. (Score:2, Informative)

              by PsiCTO ( 442262 )
              Hi all,

              In general, and especially when it comes to software patents and so-called business model patents, I'm on the side of busting 'em up. I've seen far too many far too obvious software patents in my work over the past 10 years.

              However, I have to come down on the side of Wi-LAN for this one. Like the previous poster, I too am an EE (Comp. E, and Ph.D. EE). But unlike him I have extensive background in this particular matter because as VP of Engineering for Wi-LAN in the late 90's I did a lot of the han
              • Cisco buying Radiata had NOTHING to do with the IP. They bought them because Radiata made big vocal claims about being 6-12 months ahead of everyone else in the market on developing a 802.11a chipset. As it turned out this was marketing smoke that got blown up Cisco's read. The reality was that they had a half finished product that was buggy as hell and ended up costing Cisco time to market rather than give them a lead position. The Cisco WLAN engineers bitch long and hard about the company buying them a ch

        • Re:Not exactly. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bit01 ( 644603 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:58AM (#9516991)

          Nice try, but you're committing the classic mistake: retrospectively assessing an invention. Many inventions look deceptively simple and obvious in hindsight. In fact, it's often the hallmark of a brilliant invention that it's so simple.

          A pretty sounding but faulty argument that patent supporters like to use. Retrospective assessment, by definition, will have more facts available to make a judgment and therefore will be a better judgement.True innovation is obvious both pre- and post- innovation.

          Often, so-called innovation is merely an idea whose time has come that will be invented independently in a short period of time by many people with no so-called "prior art". None. The the patent office gives a monopoly to one "inventor", sometimes giving them a multi-million dollar advantage, and penalises many others who've done exactly the same thing. Yet another example of how unfair the patent system is.

          If the patent system truly reflected the reality of IP invention rather than some lawyer fiction at a minimum it would allow multiple near simultaneous invention. It would also not make "prior art" the definition of innovation but "obvious to an expert in the field" (not some patent office non-inventor) instead. In addition it would also assume that simultaneous inventors are innocent of copying until proven guilty with a chain of evidence, like most law.

          ---

          It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
          It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
          Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

        • I cannot agree with parent. It probably took a while for Einstein to figure out that E=mc^2, but once you figure that out, you cannot patent that. Why? Just because it is the same like to patent 2 + 2 = 4. If you define "2", "4" and "+" the way we are using it now, then 2+2=4 is logical consequence.

          It is physical law that define what is W-OFDM. Simply, due to nature of EM waves, coming from Maxwell's equations, you will sooner or later prove that if you modulate some binary data with W-OFDM, you will get
          • As coherent as the post seems, the poster draws a false parallel. W-OFDM is quite different than an equation such as E=mc^2. You are right that it is not possible (or at least shouldn't be possible) to patent an equation describing the physics of the universe. However where you are not correct is in drawing the parallel between that and W-OFDM. W-OFDM defines more than an equation--it defines a procedure that explains how one encodes and decodes digital information across an analog RF spectrum. Does it
            • It is the same analogy that allows people to patent algorithms. IMO, they should not be patentable. Excactly from same reason - it is part of logic that makes bubble sort to work. Particular implementation, i.e. source code maybe even should be patentable, but as it is covered by copyright already there is no reason to do it.

              But let us get back to the topic. Let them define all additional things they want (e.g. all procedures you mention). When they make them in hardware, let them patent that. But they c

    • Re:exactly! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sigaar ( 733777 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:15AM (#9516135)
      OK, fair enough. I'm throwhing a party on Saturday night. You and the boys are invited to party with us. But you have to bring your own booz, own snacs, own smokes, own women. You're not allowed to come in my house, in fact, stay out of my yard - the sidewalk is as good a pary place as any. You're not allowed to mingle with the rest of the guests. If you do I'll sue you. Let's look at the pattern. And this is in general terms, not just this case. A company figures someting out, patents it, then sues everybody who does the same thing (or creates product that can talk to this invention). Why? Greed. That's why. Why don't they instead first prove that the technology is their invention, then notify anyone who might be violating their rights, and offer a chance to work out a solution - licence the technology. That way, you get a more permanent revenue stream. So, exactly how many friends does SCO have these days? If they had proven their ownership of the code in the linux kernel first, and then, in a friendly manner, came with the licencing sceme, their business would have been booming now. But noooo. They they want it all and they want it NOW!
    • R&D is tax deductable from income/profits, paying your morgage is not (in many countries) or at most only the interest paid is deductable from income tax, nothing more.

      So spend $9m R&D, and $9 gets deducted from profits.
      Spend $350000 on a house and you dont get to substract that from all your future salaries, pitty though, as it would fuel another market boom then BUST.

    • Sorry, you can't use my house for a party. You can't use your house, or any friends house. I have patented "having a party at a house" and will sue you for infringement if you dare try!

  • I believe that... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is all patent nonsense.

  • Sue a Standard? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sneeka2 ( 782894 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:06AM (#9516113)
    Why is it possible to sue a company which makes use of an official standardised specification like 802.11g? If something is an open standard, everybody is free to use it, unless some royalty conditions are specifically included, right? If any company has a patent on any part of a technology, it is usually a proprietary solution and not an official specification, right? So, wouldn't you need to sue the committee that approved this specific technology as standard, rather than the individuals using the standard?

    • Re:Sue a Standard? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's not how it works. A standard is just a way of saying how you should do something, not a permission to do it that way. The standards committee is not implementing its own standard, so it can't be sued as such. The question is: Did the standards committee do a good job if an implementation of the standard requires patented technology? That depends on your point of view, I guess...

    • Re:Sue a Standard? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:23AM (#9516160) Homepage
      > If something is an open standard, everybody
      > is free to use it

      Right. Except that not all standards are open. :(

      > If any company has a patent on any part of a
      > technology, it is usually a proprietary solution
      > and not an official specification, right?

      Wrong. And yes, I was horrified when I discovered this too. But it's really common for an industry standard to contain patented technologies. For example, many emerging communications standards are employing Turbo codes (which have been mentioned on Slashdot before, with various degrees of cluefulness). Now these were invented quite recently, by some French researchers, and they perform incredibly well. But in order to implement these standards, you (or your supplier, or their supplier) have to pay royalties.

      The approval committees never actually infringe any patents, so they aren't a sensible target for litigation. They are, however, a sensible target for loud and persistent complaints about patents-in-standards. Most of them have vested interests in the big companies who implement the standards anyway, so don't hold your breath for a change of heart which might actually encourage competition in those markets. :-\

      • Re:Sue a Standard? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Sneeka2 ( 782894 )
        So what you're saying is, that even if a specification is approved and it does not have a big fat 'COMPANY XYZ OWNZ THIS TECHNOLOGY, YOU WILL NEED TO PAY IF YOU USE THIS STANDARD!' on it, you'd still need to parse all the difference aspects of the specification and compare them with all filed patents at the USPO? Or the EPO? Or any county's patent office for that matter?

        OMFG!

      • Re:Sue a Standard? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jokkebk ( 175614 )
        > But it's really common for an industry standard to
        > contain patented technologies.

        And it's also common to try and patent everything you can while the standardization process is under way. As far as I recall, many telecom companies and cellphone manufacturers hold a wide portfolio of GSM-related patents.

        And because corporations are doing this, there is a large incentive for others to patent things in the standard, too, so they can swap and not end up paying huge royalties for other companies involv
        • *cough*RAMBUS*cough*

          Those bastards.
        • Yes but this wasn't such a case. These people created most of the stuff behind 802.11a before it was a standard. Cisco was experimenting with it and this company sued them. Cisco won saying "Oh no we havn't produced any actual products yet" Cisco went ahead and produced products while ignoring these guys at the same time. Obvious these guys should have immediently sued, it does kinda bother me that they waited some time after the product had become widespread. But on the other hand they did try to let cisco
    • First, I am not a technology expert.

      I think the problem here is the origin of the term "Open" in reference to standards. Historically, it's meant, "I've got this great idea, and you can implement it too...for a price." (a la OpenGL) This is as opposed to "I've got this great idea. But I'm not letting anyone else implement it." (a la trade secrets)

      The concept of free software (and its confusion with "open source" software) has led a lot of people to expect standards called "Open" to be Free.

  • Cisco's Patent (Score:5, Informative)

    by femto ( 459605 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:19AM (#9516148) Homepage
    I happen to be one of the university team which developed Cisco's OFDM technology.

    FYI here [uspto.gov] is the patent which covers that work. My name is not on it. At the time, it was the concept of a wireless version of Ethernet that was seen to be novel. Others had low speed networks (packet radio). High speed wireless point-to-point links also existed. As far as we knew, noone had yet tried to build something that was a network AND high speed.

    Anyway, that was my understanding at the time. As is usual, most parties were playing their cards close to their chest, so there could have been others. The only other one I knew of at the time was the Bereley InfoPad. I'll be as interested as anyone else to see of the patent survives the challenge.

    I don't like the current patent mess, but the Cisco patent at least was real in that itwas not speculative. There was a serious R&D effort behind it (as shown by the fact that product was produced).

    • Re:Cisco's Patent (Score:4, Interesting)

      by femto ( 459605 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:38AM (#9516203) Homepage
      I've just had a look at Wi-LANs patents. It's interesting to note that Fattouche [ucalgary.ca] and Zaghloul are both serious researchers, not lawyers, so it is unlikely that their patents were speculative. In my opinion, this is not a case of extortion.

      This will be an interesting battle to watch! I think it is unlikely that either patent will be eliminated due to lack of merit. Rather it will be genuine prior art claims that win the day.

      BTW. I'm not employed by either party anymore.

    • Re:Cisco's Patent (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @08:02AM (#9516704)
      "At the time, it was the concept of a wireless version of Ethernet that was seen to be novel."

      the funny part of this is, that Bob Metcalfe based the design of wired Ethernet on the wireless Aloha-net. I seem to remember an interview where he said they originally moved to cable because they couldn't afford the radio links that U. Hawaii had used.

      (yeah I know this is what you're referring to as packet radio - I just happen to be easily amused)

      Ok as a serious argument though, this comment from one of the Ethernet pioneers is interesting:

      "David Liddle, now general partner at U.S. Venture Partners, said Xerox charged a one-time license fee of just $1,000. That's in contrast to the huge fees associated with Token Ring.

      Xerox's stipulation was that the technology couldn't be changed -- it had to interoperate with all other Ethernet implementations. "Thus we made a playing field in which we could all thrive and compete," Liddle said"

      http://www.byteandswitch.com/document.asp?doc_id =3 4327

      Its interesting because its today's argument happening 20 years ago - IBM attempting to turn a token-ring into a cash cow (like today's patent shills) turned people away from it as a standard, and Ethernet won - admittedly with a 'RAND' approach, not a patent-free approach.
    • Ensemble was a real company with systems deployed, according to my information. So the patent Wi-Lan bought wasn't speculative, though you could argue that their buying it was.

  • Canada? Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:19AM (#9516149)
    Interestingly, this case is being brought in Canada, where the defense needs to prove its case.

    Population of Canada: 35 million [cia.gov]
    Population of the United States: 293 million [cia.gov]
    Population of Europian Union: 380 million [eu.int]

    So, assuming that Cisco had to stop selling in Canada and instead sold in just the United States and Europe (ignoring Asia, Australia, etc., entirely), their sales would decrease by less than 5% (35/708). Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to just ignore this lawsuit, and in the meantime continue selling in Canada? If the government eventually forces them to stop, it'd really be no particularly big loss, except to Canada--who would no longer have access to Cisco technology. Which would therefore make the government unlikely to stop Cisco from selling there. Seems like Cisco holds all the cards, here.

    • Re:Canada? Why bother? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So, assuming that Cisco had to stop selling in Canada and instead sold in just the United States and Europe (ignoring Asia, Australia, etc., entirely), their sales would decrease by less than 5% (35/708)

      Well, a pop. of 35 mil. (Canada) is basically equivalent to California (33 mil.). But California has a Gross State Product of $1.4 Trillian (source [ca.gov]), whereas Canada's was only $960 billion (source [cia.gov]). So it'd probably be a sales hit of even less than 5%.

      • stats aren't as meaningful unless you look at all of them. for instance, if you are trying to see which area is "more valuable", there's no way in heck you could compare canada with california, canada trounces them in many other ways, despite having a lower GDP/GSP. You also need to look at Cost of Living, I would imagine it's higher in california, therefore diluting the importance of an inflationary and artificially increased money supply. In fact, I would maintain that having it this way tends to seriousl

    • Canada - Game Theory? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NigritudeUltramarine ( 778354 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:43AM (#9516227)
      Although I can see how someone might think the parent post was a troll, it does present a somewhat reasonable strategy, from a game theory point of view, for Cisco ... basically a Grim Trigger [gametheory.net] strategy. Cisco threatens the Canadian government that they'll pull out of their market entirely if they don't cooperate with them. Cisco doesn't have much to lose, but Canada has a LOT to lose.

      • extortion Audio pronunciation of "extortion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-stôrshn)

        n.
        1. The act or an instance of extorting.
        2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
        3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
        4. Something extorted.

        bribe Audio pronunciation of "bribe" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brb)

        n.
        1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct

      • but Canada has a LOT to lose.

        Why? There's always juniper networks [juniper.net] ;-)
    • On some logical level this argument makes sense, but in realitiy do you really think the shareholders would stand by while the CEO purposely pisses away 5% of the sales?

      5% doesn't sound like much, but to a company the size of cisco it could end up costing large shareholders millions of $$. And as much as we'd like to think that certain companies 'are on our side', in reality these corporations exist to please the shareholders.

      And as far as Canada being the loser, well, cisco isn't the only game in town.

  • I think they need (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    a good wap upside the head.

  • Progress? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hido ( 655301 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:22AM (#9516157) Journal
    One small step for the patent holder.
    Two steps back for man kind.......

    So much for foresight.

  • SCO of Wireless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:26AM (#9516169)
    Wi-LAN is the SCO of the Wireless world and they have tried this before. I was part of a large roll out of their equipment several years ago, there stuff isn't very good but their major problem is that 802.11 has taken their old proprietary market away. I remember too clearly how arrogant they were that 802.11 wasn't a threat and that it would "never interoperate across vendors".

    What do you do when you can't adapt, why, you sue the people that can adapt and make the best wireless products. SCO of wireless.

    • It's interesting to hear this. By my reading, the patent Wi-LAN holds is a valid one. I guess the original inventor must have sold it.

      Perhaps the way to resolve the patent mess is to change the rules so a patent holder has to also prove that they made a serious attempt to develop the technology described in the patent? If not, they lose their priority.

  • Patent reform should also restrict enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clusterix ( 606570 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:26AM (#9516170)
    In addition to limiting what can be patented and better analysis before granting, there must be some economic morale requirements for enforcement.

    There are entirely too many IP shell companies out there that do nothing but threaten and harass useful companies without providing commercial products based on the patents themselves. They have no plans to exploit their manufacturing monopoly in any honest way. Instead, they should be required in some form to manufacturer real products utilizing their IP or risk losing enforeability in some way. That may require them to cross-license needed IP as well as seriously limit this entire anti-social/economic lawyer business. It could be possible that plaintifs in patent cases must first prove their manufacturing intent to some law/court derived set of requirements before action is started.

    • The only reason they are able to do that, is that the big companies like IBM, Sun etc pushed the patent system further and further into the state it is in now... They loved the fact to be able to get really broad and generic patents (often even with little or no investment), but forgot that this could also be used against them. Now they are whining [bbc.co.uk] about so-called patent trolls...
    • While your idea has merit on its face, one of the results would be to force the small, shed in the yard inventor, and yes, they still exist, into the manufacturing business, which might well prove economically impossible, or, force them into being the sort of corporate holder of patents that is causing so much of the trouble.

      Beyond repairing the patent granting system the ultimate solution is to eliminate patents on ideas, and to require that one working model can at least be demonstrated.

      I don't know why
      • ... require that one working model can at least be demonstrated.

        While that option has some merit, it also causes problems for the "small shed in the yard inventor" you mention. For example, I have a concept for a certain product that I think is very ingenious. The parts for me to build it probably cost tens of thousands of dollars. I cannot afford to build it myself. I cannot get VC investment because they generally invest in businesses, not products. I would have to come up with a full business pro

        • I'm often in the same boat myself. "Small" is a relative term I'm afraid.

          I'm also afraid that I really do believe that if you haven't built it it isn't yet an invention. It's just and idea for an invention which is a rather different beastie.

          The poor are poor and have the lot of the poor. Always have, always will.

          I can only offer a couple bits of advice.

          First, go ahead and start a business, an invention business. File the papers, keep books, the works. It'll only take you a few hours and couple hundred
          • What I was suggesting was that you could still sell your patent if you could not make it yourself if you wanted money. I just think that to actively pursue others for 'damages' it must damage your real business.

            On patent whines: I have a stranger patent problem myself. I want to build something that was expensively patented in 1980 that now can be made for $200. That patent is gone, yet it never went to market anyway. However, there is literally a dozen similar but bad patents with claims that cover

            • What I was suggesting was that you could still sell your patent if you could not make it yourself if you wanted money.

              That's what I understood you to mean. It's the very point of my OP. It's the way very many small inventors make their money. They invent. They leave the manufacturing and marketing to manufacturers and marketers.

              Then there's Ron Popiel, but he's unusual.

              I'm afraid I have no short term solutions for lawyers, and I don't think anyone else does either, although I've heard tell that some th
          • Thanks for the advice, and indeed I've thought of starting the business just for the purpose of licensing the idea. However, I'm not really interested in starting and "invention business". The invention idea I have is a good one, but I'm not really interested in coming with small simple inventions for a living or hobby. I do like my job and the work I do now.

            I realize my only real hope is partnering with someone and sharing the results (patents, profit, loss?). I just find that unfortunate.

            • Thanks for the advice, and indeed I've thought of starting the business just for the purpose of licensing the idea.

              This is what I meant by starting an "invention business."

              I realize my only real hope is partnering with someone and sharing the results (patents, profit, loss?). I just find that unfortunate.

              It is unfortunate, but it is what generally has to be done if you're working on an expensive project. Ford had to do it, twice, because the orginal partnership went sour (and ended up being a competit

        • I would have to come up with a full business proposal with marketing analysis an such, which I don't have the time or money to do. Plus I'm not really that interested in starting a company around the product and I certainly wouldn't want it to be controlled by venture capitalists.

          Surely, if you cannot find time or money to devote to your invention, you should not be granted 17 years of monopoly on it for just having an idea. I thought the patent laws were put in place to encourage investments in unique inv

          • You could have criteria such as creating a product or a prototype within 3-6 months of patent grant, or making a product generally available for purchase within 6-9 months.

            The prototype (or model demonstrating the principle) requirement makes sense, I think, but not so much the "product generally available" part. If you come up with something truly innovative that only (say) four or five companies have the capability of producing on an affordable scale (or, in fact, are the only companies that could bene

    • I see what you mean, but really what's the difference between
      1) "manufacturing" it yourself, which these days means faxing the drawings to Taiwan
      2) licensing your IP, which means faxing the drawings to Cisco, which then faxes them to Taiwan?

      In other words, isn't IP licensing just outsourced manufacturing?

  • Why bother with canada? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @05:39AM (#9516209) Homepage Journal
    If these guys win in Canada, it won't affect the US products, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Cisco will still be able to sell products in the US even if Wi-Lan wins.
    • I recently consulted a Canadian copyright lawyer on some matters of U.S. copyright. It turns out that Canada and many states have reciprocal agreements. That means that a case won in Canada CAN be enforced easily in the U.S. And vice versa. It also means you could litigate someplace remote like Hawaii (if they have a reciprocal agreement) and get it enforced in Newfoundland.

  • haha! (Score:1, Funny)

    by mboverload ( 657893 )
    All your Cisco tech are belong to OFDM

  • C. I. S. C. O. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    She is C. I. S. C. O.,
    She is C. I. S. C. O.,

    We spent the night in Cisco,
    At every kind of disco...

    Thank you very much.

  • Not just Wi-Fi! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2004 @06:11AM (#9516299)
    Uhh oh, looking around my house, what doesn't use this standard in some way? OFDM or varitations like COFDM are used in counless things, the DVB-T digital TV standard, 3G phones (W-CDMA), ADSL, DAB digital radio, DRM digital radio, DECT cordless phones, HomePlug adapters, HomePNA and various other bespoke standard I can't recall.

    OFDM was actually invented by the US military as a set up from frequency hopping, in the 80's the France Telecom research labs spent a lot of time developing it into COFDM.

  • Different for civil and criminal. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @06:15AM (#9516308) Homepage
    At first I thought in Canada you were guilty until proven innocent. But if my short Canadian incarceration has taught me nothing, I learned that they have very different procedures for civil and criminal proceedings. I can't come up with the proper google keywords to get a proper legal document, but if a Canadian says they have innocent until proven guilty [www.sfu.ca] then who am I to argue.

    I was found innocent of weapons smuggling BTW.

    • You might have got away with it in Canada, however you're probably on GWB's watch list now !!

    • Assuming you aren't trolling, Canadian legal procedures are much like the States (AFAIK), where in a civil case the person more likely to be right wins, and (as in almost any free country) in a criminal case, you are innocent until proven guilty.

      The only time this is slightly different is under Canada's new (and highly controversial) anti-terrorism laws, which allow police to hold people without charges (much like the new American laws -- PATRIOT act?). This act is falling apart at the seams, as the cour

  • ...assumed this was a story about a law firm demonstrating the ability to deliver writs over the airwaves by encoding them to the OFDM Wireless Standards?

  • Defence must prove their case? (Score:3, Informative)

    by julesh ( 229690 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:09AM (#9516465)
    I don't know much about the Canadian legal system, but I know that Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth, and as such its legal system is based on the British one.

    This means that, unless they have specifically enacted a change in the laws on burden of proof, the decision in a civil case like this one ought to be based on balance of evidence; that is, whichever side is most likely to be in the right should win. Nobody needs to prove anything.

    Anyone with knowledge of Canadian law want to confirm or deny this?
    • I am Canadian. Much like in the States, yes, whichever side is more likely to be right wins in a civil case. In a criminal case, you are innocent until proven guilty.

      I haven't any idea were the comment came from in the /. summary.

    • IANAL.

      In Canada, as in the US, criminal and civil cases have different burdens of proof. A patent violation suit would be tried as a civil matter. In a civil case, the judge or jury will rule based on "a preponderance of probabilities", which essentially means whichever party he/she/they believe(s) the most.

      Also, patent infringement is what is known as a "strict liability" tort, in that the plaintiff need only make their prima facia case to get a finding in their favour. Another example of a scrict liabil

  • They Should Not Be Allowed To Inforce This (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmorey ( 38458 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @07:23AM (#9516530)
    In the article in CNET there is the following quote:

    "Without our OFDM patents, there would be no
    802.11a/g," he said. "We didn't enforce these
    patents sooner, because we didn't want to slow
    down development in the market. But now that
    the technologies are firmly established, we
    feel we must protect our intellectual
    property."

    Since they did not start enforcing their patents when they first discovered the "infringement" they should not be allowed to enforce them now.
  • The whole patent thing sounds fishy, but FYI Wi-Lan is a respected radio vendor. I've deployed about a dozen links using the AWE-120 5.8 GHz bridges and its the sort of equipment that you need to write down the passwords for because you'll almost never have to log in and mess with it once its running.

    They build a competent ten mbit link radio, they've played with some weird 2.4 stuff, but mostly they strike me as a radio company trying to do some data. They've struggled to come out with a product that
  • Wi-Lan has been fighting Cisco on OFDM patents for years, including some of the fixed wireless stuff we were working on in the late 90s. Their patents are incredibly weak and flawed. Cisco should prevail, though stranger things have happened, so it wouldn't completely surprise me if they settled somehow. I'm sure Wi-Lan would love that.

  • Company Admits Wiaiting for Popularity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @10:39AM (#9518056) Homepage Journal
    The company claims "Without our OFDM patents, there would be no 802.11a/g," he said. "We didn't enforce these patents sooner, because we didn't want to slow down development in the market. But now that the technologies are firmly established, we feel we must protect our intellectual property."

    http://news.com.com/Cisco+the+target+of+wireless +l awsuit/2100-7351_3-5245505.html?tag=nefd.top

  • I'm confused... (Score:3, Funny)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Thursday June 24, 2004 @12:29PM (#9519368)
    Aren't we supposed to hope the big, faceless, powerful corporation (in this case Cisco) gets its ass kicked?

    Long live patents! I mean, er... uh... What am I supposed to do, again?

  • ...brought in Canada, where the defense needs to prove its case...

    I thought a common precept in jurisprudence was that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

    Is it true, then, that your are considered guilty until proven innocent in Canada? This boggles the mind...

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by .no.gov ( 791197 )
      Yes. I live in Canada. This is true. You are GUILTY until proven innocent. The GRC Corporation enforces this with their many stakeholders, including Microsoft and Sun Java Systems as some of the larger ones.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by RoTNCoRE ( 744518 )
      I should point out it doesn't work out that way with criminal law...this is a civil case.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close