Supreme Court Continues to Address Patent Concerns 78
The Supreme Court has taken on another possibly landscape-changing patent case that will determine if patent holders are able to sue everyone up and down the food chain for a patent infringement. "This case, officially between LG and Quanta, really concerns the question of how many times patent holders can get a cut of any component found violating a patent. Currently, patent holders will often sue up and down the food chain. So, if you happen to have a patent on a component within a motor that is used in automobile wipers, you could sue the motor maker, the wiper maker and the auto manufacturer -- and get all three to pay, even though the same product is used throughout the supply chain. This case will look at whether or not it makes sense to allow for that type of double, triple or quadruple dipping."
... and sue ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While you're at it.. sue the drivers of the cars with the patent-infringing wiper motor. They're obviously benefiting from the innovation without having compensated the patent-holder.
And the drivers of all other cars which may share the road with the cars which contain the patent-infringing motor. They are benefiting from the innovation too, by virtue of being safer on the road because of the the other driver's infringing use of the patented wiper motor.
Hell, there's no limit to the breadth of (deep or shal
No joke, they can. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to cite SCO as having prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
the only winners in patent disputes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perennially hopeless. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever wins, we lose.
It doesn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a patent, award violates it so I sue award, the motherboard manufacturers, and the retailers.
When really, the only group that I should be able to sue is award.
This is no different then going after consumer because the company they bought a product from violated some agreement with someone else.
What does the patent claim? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's take the example used in the summary of a component used in a motor in a windshield wiper blade. What does the new component do that made it patentable?
- Is the innovation purely in the use in a motor? (Reducing wear and tear?)
- Or maybe is the innovation in its effect on the wiper? (A smoother wiping motion with less noise?)
- Or maybe is the innovation in how the car performs? (Allowing a more aerodynamically friendly wiper?)
What if the patented item does all three and claims all three things? Does a SCOTUS decision ruling that you can only collect once open the door for a finger-pointing exercise between defendants (something the courts like to avoid) in trying assign infringement? Does going straight to the bottom of the supply chain always make sense? (For example, what if it doesn't do anything for the motor itself but only for the higher level functions?)
These are very important balance issues that the SCOTUS will have to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the bottom of the supply chain argument I mentioned earlier. It seems the easiest argument, but what happens if the innovation is based on the use of the component in a final product and not an intermediary one?
For example, let's imagine a windshield wiper that automatically adjusts its speed to the rate of rainfall. This would require at least two components -- a sensor for the rain and a controller that acts on said information. Assume th
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of your wipers example it's just a question of what the patent covers. If it's just the control system, then that component is in violation all by itself, and its manufacturer is at fault. If it's just the practic
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that patents are not restricted to only describing one thing. A patent can describe both a control system and an application thereof in its claims; it doesn't hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The supply chain as I understand it will have a discrete point where the infringement occurs for the first time, if you had a patent for a rear view mirror that included say a method of shaping and coating plastic for a better reflection
Re: (Score:2)
In my thinking, ONE should only be able to patent a single working and finished product that ONE will sell. I can patent the motor that runs the wiper if you want to keep the car analogy so that you can't manufacture the motor all by yourself and sell it for a lower price, but if you want to use the wiper motor in your car or your robotics experiment or in your wife's vibrator, you shouldn't have to pay me extra except for the price that I s
Re: (Score:2)
Your reasonable argument shows a fundamental problem in the patent system.
First, it is unreasonable to hold a company responsable for the use someone else makes of their product. Any one of the 3 suppliers might have chosen not to produce an integrated system to avoid patent problems. It's not reasonable to drag them back in. It's even possible that by not knowing the internal details of the componants, even the integrator didn't know the whole would violate the patent.
It's also unreasonable to hold cus
Kudos to the Roberts court (Score:1, Offtopic)
I think that the Roberts court has done an admirable job of tackling real legal issues and helping to make the law consistant, just, and effective. For example, they have addressed:
1) Can religions use otherwise illegal drugs in their ceremonies? Yes (interestingly, as a matter of statutory rather than constitutional law). See UVD v. Gonzalez.
2) What constitutes a patent being "obvious?" An obvious innovation is now defined in a way which is meaningful and can be meaningfully used as a defe
Re:It doesn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That will always be a problem. That's why we need changes to our legal framework that make it easier for business owners and management to be held legally liable for damages caused by the company if those people were aware that the damage was happening. Case in point, the idea that people can quite literally commit murder with malice aforethought (e.g. tobacco companies) and get away with it without any individual liability is breathtaking (no pun intended).
Such changes to the laws would make shell comp
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see tobacco companies as murderers, because it takes a willful act to smoke a cigarette. That's like charging the CEO at Ford for vehicular homicide because someone ran over the victim with an Explorer. You might call them exploiters, and find plenty of ethical issues therein, but murder (to me) isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't the same thing at all. A Ford Explorer, if used properly, does not kill people. A cigarette, if used properly, does; the intended purpose of a cigarette is to smoke it, and doing so directly results in death. They are providing a product that was designed to hook people with the knowledge that its use would be fatal to a substantial percentage of its users. I see no difference between that and designing razor blade packages to appeal to emo kids for wrist cutting....
If you want a Ford example
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is that Dell would probably have a patent out for their computer which clearly lists the use of the violating Award BIOS chip.
Dell doesn't go get patents for every one of their computers, or each configuration of parts. Any parts which they make I'm sure they have patents on, like their case with the hinges (assuming they build it.) Getting a patent for every amalgamation of parts they assemble is 1: impossible, since I would think this fails the test of novelty, and 2: ridiculous. Even assuming the patents would be granted, the products wouldn't be offered anymore by the time the patent process was over.
that's a bit confusing... (Score:2)
In any case, I'm pretty sure Dell doesn't patent a computer design using an Award Bios chip (since a bios is software and generally flashed into a commodity rom device).
But for arguments sake, if Phoenix had a patent on a method and apparatus for combobulating a XYZ-Bus device which they reduced to practice in their Bios code and Award implemented this in their Bios and licenced their bios to Dell. If Dell had another patent on a method and aparatus for discombobulating a ZYX-Bus device using a XYZ-de
Re: (Score:1)
As a side point, anyone know if you "have" to do a patent search? I mean if your planning on patenting your invention, you have to make sure that there isn't a patent already. But say you sit in your office come up with a great idea, and just want to sell the goods. If you don't want the patent your
more billable hours.. awwww yeahhhhh (Score:2)
That depends. who's asking? It always makes sense if you're a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent Laundering (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Setup a puppet company
2) Infringe all you want
3) Profits!!! stay safe (safely stolen) from patent holders
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-- Darl McBride
Re:Patent Laundering (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Infringe all you want
3) Profits!!! stay safe (safely stolen) from patent holders
Shell Company (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in many cases the main reselling company and the base manufacturer might not even be in collusion.
The problem is that if it's always the base manufacturer that is liable, then being such a manufacturer is not very attractive. Investors may specifically keep such companies small to limit their own potential losses. The end result is the same: damages to resellers and companies "higher in the food chain" ar
Re: (Score:1)
At least that way there would be *some* onus on the side of the prosecution to prove wrongful inte
Re: (Score:1)
Still, as another poster suggested, the profiting company would be an accessory or involved in conspiracy to infringe. Perhaps not as big a fine, but would jurors give two bits about your legal setup?
I don't think it's conscionable to expect the seventh company down the food-chain (say Johnnie fixing the neighborhood computers) to pay for Award infringing on someone else's patent. If Award goes bankrupt,
Reasonable Protection (Score:2)
Test for Obviousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is already how the patent process is supposed to work, in the USA at least. We have a first to invent patent process here, which is supposed to mean that you can not get a patent on something that another person has already invented and been using.
In most other countries however, they have switched to the first to file method, and there is pressure on the USA to switch as well.
The problem is that it is very difficult to determine who invented/implemented/developed something first. This is one of the
Re: (Score:2)
I do know it's a first to invent system but why are ridiculous things like patents for "1-click" shopping lawsuits happening? Amazon and a few others had that feature before the patent was filed?
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem with prior art is that the patent offices are pretty slow and often do half-assed jobs at evaluating prior art when people point it out. The proposed USA patent reform is supposed to make it easier to invalidate patents by submitting prior art to reduce the amount of patent trolls.
Prior art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there are a LOT of "inventions" that are the result of the obvious soloutions to a new problem or the obvious uses of new technology.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that proving prior art is difficult. Even if you are in the right, and can provide evidence to that effect, it becomes a long and expensive court case, which many cannot afford (especially the small-time inventors that patent law ostensibly promotes).
Patent-happy companies will continue to throw as many patents at the system as they can. Whatever sticks is ammunition, regardless
Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. That's a common misperception, but the rules of the courts are strongly tilted to force people into some form of non-judicial settlement. Of course, big corporate lawyers have many, many other things that they can bill over outside of the courtroom, so your point isn't entirely moot there.
T
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather h
Re: (Score:2)
You elected the politicians to write laws, but that's another topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Of longer term concern (Score:4, Insightful)
If the commercial interests in the patent system in its current form are able to purchase enough political influence, Congress may take the steps needed to make software and friends explicitly patentable under the law.
The only answer to something like that would be to vote in people who would change the law back to something sane. Will it happen? Who knows. It doesn't seem too terribly fantastic given the current system...
Of course (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true: the legal system as a whole is about keeping lawyers employed.
it's about encouraging technological progress
Well, that's the excuse. The reality is that it's just a way to protect market dominance, which is the general purpose of any monopoly, state-granted or home-grown, and always has been.
TWW
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but it is a temporary way to protect market dominance. And giving someone a temporary and limited monopoly encourages people to invent (so they can get that limited monopoly for their inventions) and it encourages people to innovate around the patented invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when you're filing 2000 patents a year it's not. The patent system protects the market leaders far more extensively than it does their challengers who can rarely even afford to find out what's already patented in the field of interest.
TWW
Another /. totally BS patent story (Score:3, Informative)
"Exhaustion - also known as the first sale doctrine - serves as a default rule in both patent and copyright laws. Under the principle, a license fee is only be charged one time per object. Thus, a rights holder controls the first sale of a protected object, but does not control subsequent sales. The copyright rule is codified in Section 109. The patent rule, however, is only based on case law."
You can ignore this if you prefer hysteria and misinformation to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another /. totally BS patent story (Score:5, Informative)
True, but the article summary and your response both gloss over the interesting issue in favor of something that's irrelevant. Patent exhaustion exists. Caselaw preventing double dipping for infringement damages already exists. This situation is different.
The decision in the Federal Circuit [fedcir.gov] holds that a patent is exhausted by an unconditional sale, p. 7, in line with Supreme Court precedent, but also holds that a patent rights are not exhausted by a conditional sale, pp. 7-8, in line with about 20 years of Federal Circuit precedent.
The interesting problem here is that the LGE patents do not cover the products sold by Intel. They only cover those products when combined with additional components. It appears that in the absence of a license, LGE could only have sued Intel for "contributory infringement" because Intel would be making products specially adapted to implement LGE's invention when combined with other components, see 35 U.S.C. 271(f) [uspto.gov], but not the patented combination itself. In essence, LGE and Intel negotiated a license that makes Intel a component source/supplier. Now those who purchased the specialized components and combined them in a manner that would infringe the patents are arguing that a license to manufacture a non-infringing but specialized component without fear of a patent lawsuit also conveys to the supplier's customers the right to practice the entire invention. That's not a clear cut question.
One of the axioms of property law is that you can only sell that which you yourself possess. If Intel has a license that merely permits it to manufacture and sell a specialized component, then arguably the purchasors have the right to resell the specialized component (that fraction of the patent right is exhausted), but do not have the right to manufacture or sell the patented invention because not even Intel has the right to manufacture and sell the patented invention. If Intel has a license to manufacture and sell the patented invention using its own components, with LGE getting a percentage of the revenues for the Intel components, then arguably neither Intel nor its purchasors have the right to manufacture or sell the patented invention when manufactured using non-Intel components -- LGE would be deprived it its rightful revenues, and Intel would infringe the patent for those combinations made with non-Intel parts.
The decision is unclear on the license structure, and I don't have time to dredge up the District Court decision, but there are potentially valid reasons for dividing up patent rights and royalty rates in this manner that cannot be reasonably described as double-dipping. For example, the Intel chips may still have value when combined with non-Intel chips in ways that do not produce the patented invention, but it may not make economic sense to manufacture two types of chips, one with the specialized aspect and one without. A licence with a modest royalty that is less than the entire royalty, whatever that is, benefits Intel by simplifying its product line and securing it from the potential of being sued as a result of the actions of its customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Next... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Patent problems (Score:1)
eh I can dream anyway
Another reason Fianl Sale is important (Score:1)