Tech Giants Pooling Cash To Buy Patents 109
theodp writes with a link to a Reuters report, based on a WSJ story, that "Verizon, Google, Cisco, and HP are among the companies that have joined a secretive group called the Allied Security Trust. Each of the companies will reportedly put $5 million in escrow to allow AST to snap up intellectual property on their behalf before it falls into the hands of parties that could use it against them. Patents will be resold after AST member companies have granted themselves a nonexclusive license to the underlying technology. According to AST CEO Brian Hinman, a former VP of IP and Licensing at IBM, the arrangement will keep member companies out of antitrust trouble." (The WSJ's story itself is more detailed, but it's subscriber-only.)
Offensive or defensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is to be used for defensive measures, it's another sign of how badly broken the US patent system is - and how expensive that brokenness is to big businesses.
If it's to be used for offensive measures, then it's another sign of how badly broken the US patent system is - and how expensive that brokenness is to small businesses.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It looks pretty defensive. Since they are selling the patent after granting themselves a license, it looks like they are just trying to avoid patent lawsuits on the cheap.
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be meant as a defensive measure, but its result is offensive, and anticompetitive.
The problem isn't that big businesses have to pay to keep themselves out of trouble. The problem is, what if this works as intended? Then ultimately, it will lower the relative risks of the member tech giants. So relatively speaking, every other small and medium business will have to pay a risk tax that does not exist for these large companies. Basically, AST will drive your mom & pop shop out of business, not through better products, but by unleveling the playing field, making it too risky for you to compete. Which will hobble the engine of American competitiveness, and in the long run, damage its place in the world economy. Not that Verizon et al. will care because they can always relocate to Europe or China if need be.
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
> The problem isn't that big businesses have to pay to keep themselves out of trouble.
> The problem is, what if this works as intended? Then ultimately, it will lower the relative risks
> of the member tech giants. So relatively speaking, every other small and medium business will have
> to pay a risk tax that does not exist for these large companies.
In other words, they're re-inventing ASCAP in a different industry. They'll offer to let those small companies join, for an extortionate annual fee, then eventually start suing everyone IT/Telcom-related who's not a member on the presumption that they couldn't possibly be doing business without infringing on SOMETHING the group owns. Then AT&T, Microsoft, Dell, and Sony will start another company with similar, but non-overlapping, patent portfolio, and metaphorically become BMG... and hit those same small companies up for a SECOND, equally-extortionate, annual fee.
BMG? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Umm, no, he means BMG, as in Sony/BMG. You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but you've overlooked one vital detail. Google does no evil.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Price is a value, some of the biggest fortunes have been made by people who discovered how to make things cheaper. Sam Walden and Henry Ford come to mind. Reducing price is a legitimate tactic.
Besides, any price reduction is not only a gain to consumers which vastly out weighs any damage to M&P stores, but also forces M&P stores to change production or close addi
Re: (Score:2)
???
How the heck can Verizon relocate to Europe or China? They have immense investment in immobile physical infrastructure. Moving headquarters out of the country doesn't protect the parts of the business still operating in the US.
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where it gets interesting is what happens if two members are in despute about a single patent. Could this trust be used to arbitrate between them or come to some solution outside of the courtroom? Are the patents open to everybody with the organisation then?
I think it could be a very interesting deal, for those on the inside that is.
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, The Dad went out of business because he refused to sell his products to people who might use them in ways he didn't like. There was always this uncomfortable pause between where he'd ask what the end use was and the customer declining to answer. That usually was immediately followed by the customer saying "no thanks" because they wouldn't enter into a sale contract that had strings attached. Funny, I wouldn't buy a car that could only be started if I justified the trip to someone else.
You can stand on your political soapbox all you like. Expect your customers to find a way around the obstruction you present. You are motivating them to do so. At the end of the day, all you've done is devalue your patent to the point of worthlessness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not talking about first-sale doctrine. I agree that when I've sold I've nothing to do with what happens with the product/patent/whatever.
I'm talking about maybe not selling to whomever just because they have the money ("We reserve the right to refuse service") on account of that I believe selling to that person/company/entity would be detrimental to my best interests (and not only to my bottom-line).
Now, the buyer might get the same thing ("find a way around the obstruction") somewhere else, but at leas
Re: (Score:2)
. a) refuse to sell, as I don't like his behavior
. b) sell in spite of my personal dislike
There has to
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I just don't like it.
Jokes aside, in my book Dad did the right thing. His actions were completely relevant in that he tried to do the right thing, not just simply the thing that made most financial sense. I applaud the Dad and wish more were like him.
Anyway, I guess I'm objecting more on a philosophical and/or ethical level than on a practical level. I've owned a small company and been an officer of a couple of others, so I know the drill - and you're right of course in your description of how it works.
I do think that if people stood up more for their principles (such as they might be) we'd have a healthier society as a whole, and perhaps even a healthier economy.
But on the other hand that might require a revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have different principles than you (Score:1)
How would you feel if you were a woman shopping for a shirt, and the vendor asks, "do you intend to wear this shirt in public, in which case you must buy the version that comes with a hood, since it is wrong for women to expose their faces in public?"
Would you buy the shirt anyway, and sign a contract promising that you will also buy a detached hood and always wear that hood with the shirt?
Or would you just go find a vendor who won't impose her conservative Islamic principles on someone who doesn't share th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, turnabout's fair play, right? How would you feel as the vendor whose religion forbids you to sell clothes without hoods to women, and still this foreign woman insists on buying a shirt without a hood? Would you throw your (religous) principles out the door to make that sale or would you refuse the sale?
If your answer is that you'd sell the shirt, I was right in my first comment; the problem with you is that you have no principles.
Now, I think that I and Migraineman above agreed that the rules of the f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The patents owners won't HAVE to sell, but if someone came to your door with a wheelbarrow full of money, you might be tempted to say "Sure, here it is." But, now that the 'secretive' group has been exposed, they are no longer, um, a secret. Yes? No?
Um, that's sort of like saying the publishers clearing house prize van and the Price is Right have been exposed for giving out money/prizes. Actually having inventors know that this is a group of not one company, but most of the heavy hitters in the industry may
Re: (Score:1)
Although one of its secrets (its existence) has been exposed, it will still tend toward secrecy by keeping its other secrets secret. Or maybe the only secret it's keeping is that it isn't very good at being secretive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Either way, there's a serious need for patent reform. Unfortunately, that's a standard democrat white bread (lawyers, yum) and the republicans veered off of of their small government market freedom in favor of big business pandering years ago... So I can't imagine either party trying to fix this right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why either party would want to fix it. On the surface, a free market doesn't preclude companies from holding patents or unlimited licenses. It doesn't really even preclude them from creating a company to give that to the before reselling the patents. Outside the fact that a patent will be used, were is the problem in a "free" market?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the surface, a free market doesn't preclude companies from dropping missiles on their competitors' buildings.
Sure, you get sued. Sure, a bunch of your staff is going to rot in court for a few years, maybe even in jail, but HEY! you destroyed the competition, the spoils of war are yours!
The concept of the free market is, quite possibly, the most damaging device to the U.S. economy - worse than the wars on drugs/terror, worse than pulling half of your leaders from the smallest gene pool in the northern he
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the surface, a close or controlled market doesn't preclude that either. Nothing would be different without a free market. A free market doesn't preempt a company from obaying an existing law or even the concept of a l
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the patent system as it now exists is the ability to patent "business processes" and software.
Re:Offensive or defensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure it does. There are no patents -- or copyrights -- in a free market. In a free market anyone can do whatever they wish with their own property, insofar as such use is compatible with the same freedom for others. Patent and copyright infringement do not impact the ability of others to use their property as they wish, and as such are meaningless concepts in a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
I think maybe you are a little confused. You don't have property without a patent or copyright when it deals with something that is considered property because of a patent or copyright. In other words, it wouldn't be their property.
But a free market is expected to follow a the laws regardless, it doesn't matter if the property is some tangible object that you can hold in your hand or a patent or copyright protecting an idea. You can and do often have a free market even though aspects of the market aren't fr
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is you who are a bit confused. You are describing the general concept of a "market economy", not a free market. In particular:
If that were true even a pure command economy could be considered a free market, subject to laws which dictate the time, place, and form of every transaction, rendering the term "free market" completely meaningless. The existance of a free market implies a very specific system of laws, which are part of th
Re: (Score:2)
I think your attempting to confuse unrelated laws with market laws and rules. Laws like not killing someone, rules like possession baring any formal contract is proof of ownership and so on. You have laws and rules created by necessity and so on that regulate dispute outside a market which could in fact effect a market. These rules aren't considered detrimental to free markets. Why, because they are dispute resolution and formal limits to everyone's actions. When something is a limitation artificially impos
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting this bizarre definition of "free market"? It's certainly not one of the standard meanings, e.g. "A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party" (Source [wikipedia.org]). Perhaps you should invent your own term to describe this concept you've invented rather than co-opting an existi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But who says that a purely free market is the best market?
Trade secrets would replace patents... great. So now we either waste resources reverse-engineering, or we lose knowledge when people die unexpectedly. And we have fewer resources allocated to design and devlopment. Wonderful.
Patents are useful things, it's a shame they have been so royally screwed up.
Re: (Score:1)
Free markets are about competition and rewards. Rewarding someone for making up stupid patents and trolling on them isn't really what free markets are about, that's supposed to be the dark side of regulation (a la democrat lawyers). Free market says that you can compete, (software) patents block competition. Or at least that's how I've interpreted the philosophy of free markets and the reality of (software) patents. So republicans in the interest in unfettered markets should be against (software) patents IM
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Extranationalism for the loss. (Score:2, Funny)
Some people are proud of their nation, and not of some businesses who try to evade it. This time around, one thing will be clear:
Businesses will no longer be able to penalize a citizen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to wonder what percent of the cost of consumer goods is due to patents. With newer medicines, it can be 99% of the cost (tho one could argue that at least there it usually has something to do with recouping research costs). What about other stuff?? How much money do patent trolls and squatters cost us in our everyday lives??
I think I'd rather have big business buying them up and exempting themselves (thus NOT incurring ongoing licensing costs that we consumers would eventually pay for) than have th
Re: (Score:2)
If it is used for defensive measures, it is a sign of the patent system working as intended. Someone invents something and gets a patent. Others who are interested in practicing that invention obtain permission from the inventor. In this case, they do so by acquiring the patent for money.
Chief Executive Officer (Score:5, Informative)
Brian Hinman is currently CEO of AST. Previously he was Vice President, Intellectual Property and Licensing for IBM Corporation. While at IBM, he held various positions including Business Development Executive for IBM Research at the Thomas J Watson Research Laboratory. Prior to IBM, he was Corporate Director of Business Development and Licensing at Westinghouse Corporation.
1, 2, 3, 4, Profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
If ever this was a great boon to the IP Squatters! I see a bundle of the folks setting up "business models" based wholly on selling IP to this single group.
Re:1, 2, 3, 4, Profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, so first you have to acquire a patent that would be relevant for them (either "invent" or buy or whatever). Then you have to attract the attention of this mob and persuade them that it would be cheaper to buy your patent, rather then just sue you for infringing one of their patents.
Then you have to repeat.
Good luck with that.
Personally, I don't see what the problem with this group is, in the current system. (Of course, there are heaps of problems with the current system, but this isn't the place to go into them.)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the rare occasion where the patent is *VERY* valuable, it is almost NEVER cheaper to allow a law suit rather than settle. In the case that The IP Cartel wins, what assets do the IP Squatters really have beyond the IP itself? In all, a net financial loss for The Cartel. This is why although both sides will "posture" and "strut
Re: (Score:1)
1. Apply for patent on a basic technology of the Internet
2. The clueless and fumbling USPTO grants the patent.
2. Attracting attention of mob, no longer a problem.
3. File lawsuit for $1,000,000,000 *pinky extended*
4. ???
5. Profit!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have to attract the attention of this mob and persuade them that it would be cheaper to buy your patent, rather then just sue you for infringing one of their patents.
Haha! You've made the mistake of assuming I'm actually doing some sort of business! As if I'd stoop that low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I patented the business model of IP squatting and am suing you for 1.46 million US for thought-infringing on my patent.
Broken! (Score:3, Insightful)
If this doesn't send a clear signal regarding how totally broken the current patent system is what will?
I actually like the basic idea behind the patent system. I think it fosters innovation and provides reasonable reward but it's completely lost its way in the area of computing.
Unlike some I don't actually think we need a complete re-think of the patent system. What we need to do is think long and hard about the hurdle a patent in computing needs to jump over to be accepted because it appears the current hurdle is too low.
RICO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like racketerring in a sense. IANAL, but I wonder if an ambitious prosecutor somewhere could use the RICO statues instead of anti-trust statutes.
Any lawyers familiar with RICO want to chime in?
Re:RICO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Spell this out to me. How does it sound like racketeering?
From what I can see, some companies have banded together to purchase patents related to stuff they might want to do in oder to give themselves a perpetual license, and then resell the patent. Unless they are going to hide the license in order to claim the patent is more valuable, I'm not sure where the evil is. If the Telecoms are the only companies that the patents are useful too, then it is no different then joe small selling them a license anyways, Most of the value of the patent will be gone once the license to the people most likely to use it is done. It is no different then you leasing a car for your family (wife and two teen age drivers) to drive. You'll get killed on the miles and it is a stupid idea but that doesn't make it illegal.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that has nothing to do with what these companies are doing. These companies are buying the patent, giving themselves a license, and reselling the patent. Nothing anti-competitive there at all unless you are a patent troll.
In today's environment, Joe Inventor gets a patent for something. A patent troll comes along and gives him (for instance) $10K for the patent. The troll then sits on the patent and waits for some legitimate company to invent the same thing, and for it to become successful. T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Sounds like racketerring in a sense. IANAL, but I wonder if an ambitious prosecutor somewhere could use the RICO statues instead of anti-trust statutes.
Any lawyers familiar with RICO want to chime in?
This is actually what this group is trying to get away from. They hate lawyers as much as the next guy. They'd love to kill every lawyer in the country every generation. (You'd still need lawyers and just killing them off wouldn't stop people from going into law anyway.) Their damn problem is people like you! Y
Queue Pat Benatar's "IP's a battlefield" (Score:3, Funny)
To the tune of "Love is a Battlefield"
They should know better than this... (Score:2)
Egads. (Score:1)
using patents as protection (Score:1)
patents are harming innovation in stead of protecting them. Copyright is enough.
So, any potential, new competitor... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is now shit out of luck, because there are 6+ companies that will smash them into the ground for trying to use every single practical approach to whatever they're trying to do, instead of a single one?
Re: (Score:2)
How is any potential new competitor any worse off then they were in the first place? They would have had to get a patent license from the original patent holders to begin with.
I think you are assuming that the potential competitors would be able to ignore the patents in some way. The only difference would be either 6 companies working as one or 6 companies working independently or 6 other patent companies working independently. The same costs and requirements for a license would be there with the same poten
Re: (Score:2)
OK, my wording was at fault. They're worse off, because they could face x lawsuits from a single source backed by a shedload of money and a band of the most fierce hellho^W^W^W^W lawyers ever employed by a corporation (read: IBM legal team), instead of several, but less significant companies, maybe some of them even at a similar level in the foodchain.
antitrust trouble (Score:1)
According to AST CEO Brian Hinman, a former VP of IP and Licensing at IBM, the arrangement will keep member companies out of antitrust trouble.
This arrangement sounds like a blatant violation of the intent of anti-trust law, and there's a good chance it also violates the letter of antitrust law.
But I suppose as long as these companies keep paying lots of money to Washington, nothing is going to change.
Patents==new oil/dotcom/housing bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
So here we are at the base camp to another bubble in speculation and hyperinflation, this time in the market of IDEAS.
The way things used to work, advertisers tried to convince you of the utility and attractiveness of their products. Speculators predicted how much a product or resource would sell for. Now we will have ads and speculators working in the field of ideas, which are thoughts, which is a little disturbing to me.
It will happen soon that ads will be for brand names (not products); campaigns will be waged with one trademark against another; mascots engaging in mudflinging; ads proclaiming that some product has the most patents...
I see mutual-fund-like holding groups for IP that will begin paying big dividends. I see the market changing from product- and service-driven to trademark-driven.
Dammit I told myself no more posting before coffee.
The point I'm trying to make is that I foresee a huge bubble in patents and trademarks, and speculation thereof, and I'm worried that it could be the last straw for our poor economy. OK.
-b
Re: (Score:1)
I forget who it was (some car manufacturer... might have been Audi) but the advert went along the lines of "we filed more patents than NASA while inventing this car" to make it sound like some amazing, god-sent new technology
Re: (Score:2)
My current ad of hate is the Gillete Fusion which advertises that they have 20 patents pending on it, over and above their standard razor. Really, what in the hell is unique or inventive about it. It's a standard razor which offers very little over and abo
Allied Security Trust == SCO II (Score:2)
The first time this practice went around, the company got bludgeoned. This time, they try not to get noticed, and form nearly the same thing. No software, just a larger patent troll.
Perhaps it's time this IP "social club" gets the same treatment as SCO.
"Secretive"? Fail! (Score:2)
They've joined a "secretive" group called the Allied Security Trust? Not all that secret now, is it?
the real problem...fix the USPO! (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need is to fix the problem, which is a broken patent system and an unqualified oversight mechanism. Courts aren't much help to settle issues because an (un|de)qualified jury simply listening to testimony of experts just isn't effective or fair.
What's going to end up happening with all these companies spending billions is that they will come to embrace the current screwed-up system and probably defend it because of their investment. They even may end up lobbying to maintain the status quo.
The small developer is screwed in the butt as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
The small developer will move to Europe (or anywhere outside the USA) and carry on as if the US software patent system did not exist ...
It will be more and more difficult to sell software in the USA without infringing someone's patent so people will stop bothering, or charge much more for the same software, software companies will move outside the USA, watch the death spiral of the US economy follow ....
Re: (Score:2)
What's going to end up happening with all these companies spending billions is that they will come to embrace the current screwed-up system and probably defend it because of their investment. They even may end up lobbying to maintain the status quo.
Let's face it. The status quo works. Those that have built "successful" companies in the US in say the last 100 years can attest to it working. Now they also know how to game the system for their best advantage. I'd have to say there isn't anything morally wrong
Re: (Score:1)
Open Invention Network (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not spend that money... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Question Is, (Score:2)
Hey... (Score:2)
Imaginery property (Score:1, Offtopic)
What dork on here keeps slinging around this infantile put down of IP as 'imaginary property'? I'll make a deal with you, You respect the Intellectual property of others, and the banks will respect your imaginary wealth stored as a string of numbers on a bank computer. deal?
After all, your bank balance is imaginary property too.
*sigh*
Freedom For The Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see that we're developing another system whereby giant corporations are free to operate, and smaller enterprises are barred from entry. I'm sure that is exactly what Adam Smith had in mind for free market competition.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that is exactly what Adam Smith had in mind for free market competition.
Do not be so quick to pin this one on Adam Smith and the free market. The secret organization exists solely to mitigate the effects (at additional cost so it is still inefficient) of a patent system enforced by the power of government. In a purely free market neither the patent system nor this organization would exist. That is the problem with government incursions into the free market, they tend to create more problems than they solve which then require additional incursions and so on until the market itse
Re: (Score:2)
>> I'm sure that is exactly what Adam Smith had in mind for free market competition.
> Do not be so quick to pin this one on Adam Smith and the free market.
My apologies - I was being sarcastic. I'm a very big fan of capitalism and of Adam Smith, and only a foe of the perversion of it that we have built in The States.
I doubt that very much. (Score:2)
We have a word for this (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, maybe not exactly, but it could certainly turn into one, especially if some of the more, shall we say, "evil" industry players begin to join.
Surpise! (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys are going to be SOOOOOO pissed when they find out over 95% of the world isn't even under US IP laws, and those that are pay no attention ;)
Axis of Evil!! (Score:1)
They should offer licenses to OS projects too (Score:1)
As the open source model has already beein proven as a viable business model, they will create antitrust issues if they do not offer an automatic non exclusive license to open source projects (say those using licences from opensource.org)
This goes particularly for Google, whose business model does depend on open source licenses. If, for example Android v2 is covered by dozens of patents, what good is its Apache licence? (Note: If you want to link to Android your application is not a derivative under the