FTC Defends Ethernet From Patent Troll 59
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."
But wait (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A small victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
from the patent troll, and this is just showing the patent troll who is really boss.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you sir for your funny signature. I enjoyed it so much, I almost spit out the water I was drinking from a Gatorade bottle.
I have patent rights on using sports-drink bottles as distilled water containers, by the way. There! I'm no longer off-topic!
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.
Eh? (Score:1)
802.3 is Ethernet
Re: (Score:2)
GPL? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
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:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here."
I was just in one of my optimistic moods. Don't worry it is long gone now.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, mate. Happens to the best of us (and me too).
I'm no expert on intellectual property and patent/trademark/copyright law, but I know enough to know 97% of the /. posts the those subjects are complete bullocks. Think of how we mock PHBs and fossilized bureaucrats who compare the internet to a series of tubes. I imagine anyone with any actual knowledge of IP law would have the same regard for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably worse. Let's face it calling the Internet "tubes" really wasn't all that stupid. I have often heard knowledgeable people talk about Internet connections as "pipes". On Slashdot people speak with so much arrogance about IP law and at the same time are so clueless that it is like a bad Holiday Inn Express commercial.
That *is* done. We're not at Year X yet. (Score:2)
ALL patents and in fact all the temporary monopolies known in layman's terms as "intellectual property" are already term-limited. The problem is that the terms have been progressively extended over the decades since they were introduced so that, for all practical purposes, they might as well be permanent.
That is, "year X" just plain takes too long to get here.
A secondary issue that is closer to what you're thinking of is the terms o
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)
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:2)
Made of bricks and powered by a waterfall? Please tell me you're joking. Read a few patents before saying something this silly.
This would be a terrible idea as well, unless you want patent applications to cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars (per country, no less). Perhaps the presumption of validity should be relaxed a bit, but
Re: (Score:2)
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
Why not, indeed. (Score:2)
Sure. And why not limit the number of times rights can be reassigned on something like music files? Why not have the number be 1, for the original sale? I'm sure the RIAA would like that. And why not apply the same standard to software? Or anything else?
You're right in the dual purposes of patents, but allowing the holder of a patent to sell rights does not counter the letter or spirit of either purpose.
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?
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We know the stated purposed of the GPL (and assume it to be its true purpose), and we know the stated purpose of patents (and also assume it to be their true purpose). The source release imposed by the GPL is about as in-line with its stated purpose as it gets. But the stated purpose of patents is, in short, to give the inventor some degree of reward for the invention, while also getting it into the public domain ASAP.
Had NatSemi hiked the licensing prices, I might cry foul, but it'd be ultimately their
Re: (Score:2)
It never meant gathering a few thousands of ideas everyone in the industry would get within next year anyway, then keeping them never intending to manufacture them, only gaining money from others.
Patents were intended to protect you from others who copy you
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: (Score:2)
Sure it does. One of the ships in the convey was a car carrier [wikipedia.org].
You'd think I have to come up with all of the original ideas around here? ;) *duck*
cynical view (Score:2)
Promissory Estoppel? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel [wikipedia.org]
I wonder if that's why the troll caved so easily? (badum tish!)
Ok. Here goes... (Score:1)